United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid
Waste and
Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA/542/R-92/005
October 1992
oEPA
CERCLA/SUPERFUND
Orientation Manual
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
EPA/542/R-92/005
October 1992
CERCLA /Superfund
Orientation Manual
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
401 M Street, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
NOTICE
Development of this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. It
has been subjected to the Agency's review process and approved for publication as an EPA document.
The policies and procedures set out in this document are intended solely for the guidance of response
personnel. They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights, substantive or
procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. EPA officials may decide to
follow this guidance, or to act at variance with these policies and procedures based on an analysis of
specific site circumstances, and to change them at any time without public notice.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
FOREWORD
In 1980 Congress passed a law called the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly referred to as Superfund. The law authorizes the Federal
government to respond directly to releases, or threatened releases, of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health, welfare or the environment. CERCLA also enables EPA to take legal action to
force parties responsible for causing the contamination to cleanup those sites or reimburse the Superfund
for the costs of cleanup. If those responsible for site contamination cannot be found or are unwilling or
unable to clean up a site, EPA can use monies from the Superfund to clean up a site. In 1986, CERCLA
was updated and improved under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) has the responsibility for developing
policy and implementing Superfund response activities. The OSWER is comprised of several offices. The
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) is responsible for national policy, regulations and
guidelines for the control of hazardous waste sites and response to and prevention of oil and hazardous
substance spills. The Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) provides guidance and support for
the implementation and enforcement of CERCLA, Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), Oil
Pollution Act (OPA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to Know Act (EPCRA). The
Office of Solid Waste (OSW) is responsible for a management system for hazardous and solid waste. The
Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) is responsible for administering the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund. The LUST Trust Fund is available to States to help them dean up leaks
from underground petroleum storage tanks provided that certain conditions for use of the fund have been
met. The Superfund Revitalization Office's (SRO) goals are to accelerate the pace of cleanup actions,
improve contracts management, and communicate progress and build public confidence in the Superfund
program. The Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) has responsibility for
EPCRA, enacted as Title m of SARA and for the accidental release provisions for the Clean Air Act
(CAA). The Technology Innovation Office (TIO) promotes the use of innovative treatment technologies
to permanently cleanup contaminated sites in the Superfund, RCRA, and Underground Storage Tank
programs.
The 'CERCLA/Superfund Orientation Manual" serves as a program orientation guide and reference
document, and it is designed to assist EPA and State personnel involved with hazardous waste remediation,
emergency response, and chemical and emergency preparedness. The Manual describes the organizational
and operational components of the Superfund Program.
As the Superfund Program enters its second decade, EPA is identifying and responding to long-term
needs of the program. This process includes a program (Superfund 2000) to study the possible universe
of sites, technologies, and opportunities for further integration with other EPA programs. EPA is also
piloting a new plan, called the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) designed to prioritize risk
reduction and take remedial action in shorter timeframes and enable better communication of program
accomplishments to the public.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
The Technology Innovation Office extends special thanks, and acknowledgments, to the individuals (listed
on the following page) who assisted in the compilation of this material, reviewed the draft sections, and
provided comments.
Henry L. Longest n, Director /s/
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D., Director, /s/
Technology Innovation Office
Timothy Fields, Jr., Director, /s/
Superfund Revitalization Office
Bruce M. Diamond, Director, /s/
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This manual was developed by the Technology Innovation Office of the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER). Special thanks to the following individuals in EPA who reviewed the
drafts and provided valuable comments:
Technology Innovation Office (TIO) Michael Forlini, Marlene Suit
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) George Alderson, Joan Barnes, Steve
Caldwell, Rhea Cohen, Bruce Engelbert, James Fary, Janet Grubbs, Jeff Langholz, Marsha
Lindsey, Tina Maragousis, Robert Myers, Paul Nadeau, Carolyn Offutt, Bruce Patoka, John
Riley, Karen Sahatjian, Thomas Sheckells, Susan Sladek, Dana Stalcup, Richard Troast,
Suzanne Wells
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) Tracy Back, Kathryn Boyle, Frank Finamore,
Julie Klaas, Bruce Kulpan, Alice Luddington, Betsy Smidinger, Cecilia Smith, Deborah
Thomas
Office of Solid Waste (OSW) Anne Price
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) Kimberly Jennings
Office of General Counsel (OGC) Charles Openchowski, Lawrence Starfield, and other
OGC staff
Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE) Sally Dalzell
Region 10 - Judith Schwartz
This document has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and approved for
publication. Any trade names or commercial products are examples only and are not endorsed or
recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
For further information regarding this manual please contact:
Michael Forlini
Technology Innovation Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM 1-1
II. SUPERFUND LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY FRAMEWORK II-l
HI. SUPERFUND PROCESS III-l
IV. ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM IV-1
V. REMOVAL ACTIONS V-l
VI. SITE ASSESSMENT VI-1
VII. REMEDIAL ACTIONS VH-1
VIII. STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT VIH-1
IX. FEDERAL FACILITIES IX-1
X. COMMUNITY RELATIONS/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION X-l
XI. MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE XI-1
XII. APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS XH-1
XIII. CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION XIH-1
XIV. FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM XIV-1
Appendix A: Resource for Superfund Program Publications A-l
Appendix B: EPA Organizational Charts B-l
Appendix C: EPA Regional Office Directory C-l
Appendix D: CERCLA/Superfund Program Acronyms D-l
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy i
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Number Title Page
1 The Superfund Process III-2
2 The Basic Enforcement Process IV-5
3 Removal Actions by Type of Incident V-3
4 The Removal Process V-10
5 The Site Assessment Process VI-3
6 The Remedial Process \TI-3
7 RCRA and CERCLA: Different Approaches to a Common Goal XIH-5
8 The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) Process XIV-4
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy ii
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
WHY WAS SUPERFUND NECESSARY?
WHAT MAKES SUPERFUND UNIQUE?
WHAT IS HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE?
- CERCLA Definition of a Hazardous substance,
Pollutant, or Contaminant
- RCRA Definition of Hazardous Waste
- Other Hazardous Substances
HOW DOES SUPERFUND WORK?
- Removal Actions
- Remedial Actions
- Enforcement Actions
WHO IS INVOLVED IN SUPERFUND?
WHERE IS THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM HEADED?
- The 90-Day study
- The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
WHY WAS SUPERFUND
NECESSARY?
lass] KHe 3leti> gjlock Ecibune IS
** LOVE CANAL **
Ixjtrts
I!,'!!!!;:!!!!:
CHICAGO
iiil
i'!!."!'!'!'!!
Cwrecft'iw
ActioM Underway
!
I '
^
Egl
i utiiitii
!! u'l'iuii
rj, j,o'x
"'"III
EEJJBWA
5KOCKED
;!' i
HOUiroH
!i!
1
The purpose of the Superfund program is to address
threats to human health or the environment resulting from
releases or potential releases of hazardous substances from
abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the primary
responsibility for managing activities under the Superfund
program.
The Superfund program is one of the nation's most
ambitious and complex environmental programs. The number
of actions taken and sites targeted by the Superfund program
is substantial. For example more than 200 emergency actions
must be taken each year to address immediate threats, and
over 2,000 were taken in the first ten years of the program.
More than 1,200 sites are currently scheduled for long-term
cleanup and additional sites are being evaluated daily. While
accomplishing its goals, the Superfund program must comply
with a complex network of laws, regulations, and guidance.
Superfund actions are further complicated by the necessary
coordination with response officials at all levels of
government, as well as the general public and the parties
responsible for the threats. Finally, the response or cleanup
technologies used at Superfund sites are constantly being
challenged by the extraordinary variety of hazardous
substance sites.
In the late 1970s, the threat of hazardous waste to human
health and safety was brought to national public attention by
the media coverage of several hazardous waste sites. The
most controversial site was Love Canal in Niagara Falls, New
York. Large amounts of abandoned, buried hazardous waste
caused extensive contamination of the area, declaration of the
area as a disaster by the Federal government, and eventual
relocation of most area residents. Considerable publicity was
also devoted to other sites such as the chemical control of the
Livingston Train Derailment and the Valley of the Drums.
Newspaper headlines frequently reported on transportation
accidents, fires and explosions, buried drums, and other
incidents at sites involving hazardous substance releases.
These sites caused potential threats to soil, ground water,
surface water, and air. However, there was no authority for
direct Federal response to such hazards.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy l-l
-------
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
Several Federal environmental statutes did exist,
however, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
(FWPCA) and its amendment, the Clean Water Act of 1972
(CWA), focused on discharges of oil and hazardous
substances into U.S. navigable waters, The Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) established
a regulatory system to manage hazardous wastes from the
time they are generated to their final disposal. RCRA also
imposes standards for transporting, treating, storing, and
disposing of hazardous wastes. It is designed to prevent the
creation of new hazardous waste sites by authorizing EPA to
take administrative, civil, and criminal actions against facility
owners and operators who do not comply with RCRA
requirements.
The discovery and subsequent publicity of hazardous
waste sites such as Love Canal and Valley of the Drums
made it acutely apparent that existing regulatory requirements
were not enough. The Federal government sought to obtain
the authority needed to deal with threats from hazardous
substance sites to human health and the environment. The
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) was designed to provide
this authority.
CERCLA's passage in 1980 launched the Superfund
program. This Act gave the Federal government, for the first
time, authority to take direct action or force the responsible
party to respond to emergencies involving uncontrolled
releases of hazardous substances. The statute also required
the Federal government to develop longer-term solutions for
the nation's most serious hazardous waste problems.
CERCLA gave authority to the President who, in turn, issued
Executive Order 12316 delegating primary responsibility to
EPA for managing activities under the Superfund program.
The activities under the Superfund program include:
Identifying sites where releases of hazardous substances
had already occurred or might occur and pose a serious
threat to human health, welfare, or the environment
Taking appropriate action to remedy such releases
Ensuring that parties responsible for the releases pay for
the cleanup actions. This payment could be either the
initial funding of cleanup actions or the repayment of
Federal funds spent on response actions.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy 1-2
-------
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
To pay for Federal response actions, CERCLA created
a TrustFund, or "Superfund," of $1.6 billion. This TrustFund
was financed primarily with a tax on crude oil and 42
commercially-used chemicals. The tax supports the concept
that those responsible for environmental pollution should
assume the cost. Thus, even though the Superfund program
may finance the response action, recovery of these Federal
funds is sought from those parties responsible for the
hazardous release.
On October 17,1986, Congress passed amendments to
CERCLA, called the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA). SARA made several important
changes and additions to the Superfund Program that
strengthened and expanded the cleanup program. SARA
increased the size of the CERCLA Trust Fund to $8.5 billion
and refined its financing. SARA also stresses developing and
using permanent remedies. In addition, SARA provides new
enforcement authorities and settlement tools, requiring
changes in the system used to determine which sites should be
addressed and increasing State involvement in the Superfund
process.
SARA included a free-standing statute, Title m. This
statute increased community awareness and access to
information regarding the presence of extremely hazardous
chemicals in their community. Through the use of this
information, communities are able to develop a local
emergency response plan to help mitigate the effects of a
chemical incident.
In November of 1990, Congress extended Superfund rs
statutory authority through 1994 and the taxing authority
through 1995.
WHAT MAKES SUPERFUND Prior to CERCLA, the Federal government lacked the
UNIQUE? authority and resources needed to respond to releases of
hazardous substances (other than releases to surface water)
or to clean up hazardous waste sites. As discussed above,
earlier legislation provided primarily regulatory requirements,
not authority to take emergency removal or longer-term
remedial action. CERCLA-s authority for Federal response
enables EPA to address releases, or threatened releases, in
the event responsible parties do not take timely, adequate
action.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy 1-3
-------
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
The Superfund program has several other distinct
characteristics. Superfund is set apart from many other
Federal environmental programs because it is uniquely action-
oriented. It asserts that each potentially responsible party
(PRP) associated with a site will be held liable, and places the
cost burden on that party.
CERCLA is a strict liability statute, which means that
responsible parties are liable without regard to negligence or
fault. In situations where more than one PRP is involved, it
may be difficult to determine each PRPrs contribution to the
release. In these situations, the courts have held that an
owner, operator, waste generator or transporter may be held
liable for the entire cost of site cleanup, unless it can be shown
that the harm is "divisible" (e.g., there are two or more
physically separate areas of contamination). This concept,
known as, "joint and several liability", is atool that encourages
PRPs to perform cleanups.
Cost recovery of Trust Fund monies and PRP-fmanced
actions are also unique characteristics of the Superfund
program. EPA is authorized by CERCLA to take aggressive
efforts to ensure that responsible parties assume as much of
the cleanup costs as possible. Ideally, Trust Fund monies are
used only when PRPs cannot be identified or are not
financially viable. If they refuse to comply with a cleanup
order under CERCLA, EPA may recover triple its costs from
responsible parties. The Superfund program was also given
broad and effective authorities to encourage responsible
parties to reach voluntary settlements to pay for site,
cleanups. Cost recovery efforts are critical to the success of
the Superfund program because the cost of cleanup of all
priority sites far exceeds the money available in the Trust
Fund.
WHAT IS A HAZARDOUS The Superfund program is triggered by a "release" or a
SUBSTANCE? "substantial threat of a release" of hazardous substances into
the environment. A "release" is defined in CERCLA as any
spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying
discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or
disposing of hazardous substances into the environment. The
definition of a release includes the abandonment or discarding
of barrels, containers, and other closed receptacles containing
a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. The release
must involve either:
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy 1-4
-------
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
A hazardous substance, as defined in the Superfund
statute,
or
CERCLA Definition of a
Hazardous Substance, Pollutant,
RCRA Definition of Hazardous
Waste
A pollutant or contaminant that may present an
imminent or substantial danger to public health or welfare.
"Hazardous substance" includes substances defined as
"hazardous waste" under RCRA, as well as substances
regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act
(CWA), and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In
addition, any element, compound, mixture, solution, or
substance may also be specifically designated as a "hazardous
substance" under CERCLA. "Pollutant or contaminant" is
defined in CERCLA as any element, substance, compound,
or mixture that, after release into the environment and upon
exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation into any
organism, will or may reasonably be anticipated to cause
illness, death, or deformation in any organism. Both definitions
specifically exclude petroleum and natural gas, and thus
CERCLA authority may not be used to respond to
releases of these substances.
"Hazardous waste" is defined under RCRA as a "solid
waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its
quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious
characteristics may:
1. Cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or
incapacitating reversible illness, or
2. Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise
managed."
RCRA defines hazardous waste in terms of properties of a
solid waste. Therefore, if a waste is not a solid waste, it
cannot be a hazardous waste. RCRA regulations define a
solid waste as hazardous either by reference to a list of
hazardous wastes or based on the waste's characteristics.
EPA has identified four characteristics for hazardous
waste. Any solid waste that exhibits one or more of these
characteristics is classified as hazardous waste under RCRA
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy 1-5
-------
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
Other Hazardous Substances
and, in turn, as a hazardous substance under CERCLA. The
four characteristics are ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and
toxicity. The responsibility for determining if a particular solid
waste is hazardous falls on the generator of the waste.
The vast majority of hazardous wastes are generated by
chemical and petroleum industries. These industries alone
generate 71 percent of all hazardous wastes. The remainder
is generated by a wide range of other industries, including
metal finishing, general manufacturing, and transportation.
CERCLA's definition of "hazardous substance" also
includes substances regulated by CWA, CAA,,and TSCA:
HOW DOES SUPERFUND
WORK?
The CWA, including amendments from the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 (OP A), regulates the discharge of pollutants,
oil, or hazardous substances into U.S. navigable waters.
EPA has designated more than 400 substances as either
toxic chemicals or "hazardous substances" under the
CWA.
The CAA, section 112, directs EPA to identify hazardous
air pollutants (HAPs) and to establish emission standards,
known as national emissions standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAPs), for sources that emit the
pollutants. EPA has promulgated NESHAPs for sources
of the following pollutants: arsenic, asbestos, benzene,
beryllium, mercury, radionuclides, and vinyl chloride.
Section 112 also defines almost 200 other substances as
hazardous air pollutants.
TSCA provides authorities to control the manufacture,
sale, and disposal of certain chemical substances, such as
PCBs, CFCs, asbestos, and TCDD.
Substances defined by any of the above Acts as hazardous or
toxic, are considered "hazardous substances" under
CERCLA. However, CERCLA excludes petroleum unless it
is specifically listed or designated under one of the above
statutes.
EPA has the primary responsibility to manage the cleanup
and enforcement activities under Superfund. A comprehensive
regulation known as the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) contains the
guidelines and procedures for implementing the Superfund
program. The Superfund process is depicted in Exhibit 1 on
page III-2.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy 1-6
-------
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
1 1 1 -
M"
1
CERCLIS
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
j I
r~
The first step in the Superfund process is to identify
abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. EPA does
this through a variety of methods, including reviewing records
and information on hazardous substance disposal and storage
provided by States, handlers of hazardous materials, and
concerned citizens. The NCP requires facility owners or
operators to report releases exceeding the reportable quantity
(RQ) of hazardous substances to the National Response
Center. This center is continuously manned and acts as the
single point of contact for all pollution incident reporting .
Once an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste site
is identified, information regarding the site is entered into a
data base known as CERCLIS, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System. CERCLIS maintains a permanent record
of all information regarding all reported potential hazardous
waste sites.
After discovery or notification of a site or incident EPA or
the State conducts a preliminary assessment (PA) to decide
if the site poses a potential threat to human health and the
environment. If the site presents a serious imminent threat,
EPA may take an emergency "removal" action. If the PA
shows that a contamination problem exists but does not pose
an imminent threat, or if the site continues to pose a problem
following EPA actions, EPA may proceed to the next step of
the evaluation process, and conduct a site inspection (SI). If
at any point during the assessment and inspection process the
site is determined to not present a potential threat, the site can
be eliminated from further CERCLA consideration with a
decision that the site evaluation is accomplished (SEA).
From the beginning of the Superfund process, EPA
makes every effort to identify the parties responsible for the
hazard and encourage them to respond. If efforts to ensure
responsible party response do not lead to prompt action,
EPA may act using Trust Fund monies.
Every Superfund site is unique, and thus cleanups must be
tailored to the specific needs of each site or hazardous
substance release. EPA may respond with enforcement or
Trust Fund- financed removal actions or remedial actions,
collectively known as response actions.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy 1-7
-------
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
Removal Actions
Removal actions are usually short-term actions designed
to stabilize or cleanup a hazardous site that poses an
immediate threat to human health or the environment. Also,
removal actions are conducted in response to accidental
releases of hazardous substances. Typical removal actions
include removing tanks or drums of hazardous substance on
the surface, installing security measures such as a fence at site,
or providing a temporary alternate source of drinking water
to local residents.
Remedial Actions
Enforcement Actions
Remedial actions are generally longer-term and usually
more costly actions aimed at a permanent remedy. EPA may
use Trust Fund monies for remedial construction only at sites
on the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is EPA's list
of the nation's priority hazardous waste sites. Typical
remedial actions may include removing buried drums from the
site; thermally treating wastes; pumping and treating
groundwater; and applying bioremediation techniques or other
innovative technologies to contaminated soil.
Enforcement actions to obtain voluntary settlement, or
if necessary, to compel PRPs, may be taken to implement
removal or remedial actions. Once the PRP has agreed to
take response actions at a site, the enforcement program
ensures that the studies or cleanup activities are performed
correctly and in accordance with the order or decree, the
statute, the NCP, and relevant guidance.
The PRPs may include the owners and operators,
generators, transporters, and disposers of the hazardous
substance. If sufficient evidence is present to show that PRPs
are liable and the PRPs are financially viable (i.e., not
bankrupt), they are generally given the opportunity to make
a voluntary, good faith effort to settle and take responsive
actions. Alternatively, EPA may issue orders directing them
to conduct the response, or take court action to secure the
necessary response.
CERCLA also authorizes the use of Trust Fund money
for response actions and provides the authority necessary to
seek repayment from responsible parties. EPA generally uses
Trust Fund money to responsible if: (1) PRPs have not been
identified or are not financially viable; (2) litigation against a
PRP is pending; (3) insufficient evidence has been collected
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy 1-8
-------
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
linking a PRP to the waste; or (4) the threat is substantial and
imminent enough to warrant immediate action. Where a PRP
refuses to comply with an order, and EPA uses Trust Fund
monies to perform the ordered work, EPA may recover triple
the costs.
Criminal statutes also support CERCLA's enforcement
tools. There are criminal penalties for failure to notify proper
authorities of releases exceeding an RQ. Submitting false
information about sites or releases are also criminal offenses.
WHO IS INVOLVED IN As stated above, EPA has the primary responsibility for
SUPERFUND? managing the cleanup and enforcement activities under
Superfund. The EPA officials with primary responsibility for
directing response efforts and coordinating all activities at the
scene of a discharge or release include On-Scene
Coordinators ( OSCs) and Remedial Project Managers
(RPMs).
EPA "
The OSC is the Federal official designated to coordinate
and direct Superfund removal actions. The RPM is the official
designated to manage remedial and /or other response actions
atNPL sites. To ensure the effectiveness of response actions,
both OSCs and RPMs are responsible for coordinating with
EPA Regional staff (e.g., Regional Administrator, Office of
Regional Counsel, etc.), EPA Headquarters staff, and other
Federal, State, and local agencies.
In addition to OSCs and RPMs, EPA's Environmental
Response Team (ERT) participates in the Superfund process.
The ERT provides technical support to the Regional
Superfund removal and remedial programs, and coordinates
and conducts safety program activities. Major activities
include on-site technical support, administrative support,
information transfer, and safety program activities.
In addition to EPA, there are other major players in the
Superfund process who have important roles in many cleanup
activities. These participants include other Federal agencies,
States and Indian Tribes, PRPs, and the communities in which
the sites are located. Local governments are also involved
because they are often the first on the scene in an emergency.
It should be noted that Federal, State, and local agencies are
not exempt from CERCLA, and therefore maybe identified as
PRPs.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy 1-9
-------
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
States and
Indian Tribes
PRPs
Community
States have always been encouraged to participate in the
Superfund process. Under current Superfund law, Indian
Tribes are generally treated the same as States. Involvement
of States has grown over time and they are now formally
involved in virtually every phase of Superfund decision-
making. CERCLA requires EPA to coordinate with States
when the Federal government leads or oversees the site
response. CERCLA also authorizes EPA to allow States and
political subdivisions, such as county governments, with
sufficient technical and management expertise, to act as the
lead agency, and carry out most of the cleanup efforts. In
these cases, EPA is still the Federal agency responsible for
ensuring that the site cleaned up.
The involvement and participation of PRPs is central to
the Superfund program. This participation may result from a
willingness on the part of the PRP to take the initiative to
clean up their sites and from negotiations with EPA under
which the company undertakes the work. However, private
party participation may also be compelled by judicial action
by EPA and the Department of Justice. In either case, PRPs
follow the same process EPA follows; at each stage of the
process PRP decision and construction of the remedy are
subject to EPA's oversight and approval.
EPA promotes two-way communication between the
public, including PRPs, and the lead government agency in
charge of response actions. The NCP provides interested
persons about opportunity to comment on, and provide input
to, decisions about response actions. The NCP ensures that
the public is provided with accurate and timely information
about response plans and progress, and that their concerns
about planned actions are heard by the lead agency. Site-
specific and well-planned community relations activities is an
integral part of every Superfund response. Such activities
include the following:
Publish a notice and brief analysis of the response action,
describing proposed action
Give the public an opportunity to comment on the
response action
provide an opportunity for a public meeting to permit
two-way communication on the response action
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy 1-10
-------
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
WHERE IS THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM HEADED?
The 90-Day Study
Make a transcript of the public meeting available to the
public as a part of the response action decision document
Prepare a response to each significant public comment on
the proposed response action plan.
Public participation requirements may vary between the
remedial process and removal actions, because of the urgency
of removal actions.
EPA's primary challenges, at the start of the Superfund
program, were to respond to cleanup requests, build and staff
an organizational structure, develop program policies and
guidance, and develop technologies to clean up sites. In
response to these challenges, EPA has developed and
continues to streamline management procedures and policies
to administer the Superfund program. In addition, the nation's
scientific and engineering communities' efforts to solve the
unique problems identified by Superfund have resulted in the
development of a wide range of techniques for treating and
disposing of hazardous substances, a greater understanding of
the health effects, and an expansion of the nation's laboratory
capacity.
After more than ten years of experience implementing the
Superfund program, EPA has had the opportunity to evaluate
past program activities and achievements, and to identify
enhancements needed. An EPA-published report,
Management Review of the Superfund Program commonly
called "The 90-Day Study," describes the achievements to
date and a strategy for future management of the Superfund
program. In this report, EPA announced a long-term strategy
for Superfund. The strategy contains the following eight goals:
Control acute environmental threats immediately
Address worst sites/worst problems first
Monitor and maintain sites over the long-term
Emphasize enforcement
Develop and use new technologies
Improve efficiency of program operations
Encourage full public participation
Foster cooperation with other Federal and State
agencies.
EPA developed these eight goals based on the lessons
learned during the first ten years of the program, and will build
upon those lessons to chart the course for the future.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy l-l 1
-------
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
The Superfund Accelerated In early 1992, EPA initiated a plan aimed at streamlining
Cleanup Model the Superfund process and redefining the way progress is
measured. The key objective of the plan is substantial,
prioritized risk reduction in a shorter timeframe.
Under this new plan, called the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM), EPA will integrate removal
actions and remedial actions to address immediate and
substantial risks, thus eliminating the procedural distinctions
between the remedial and removal programs.
A goal of SACM is to streamline site assessments into
one process and establish Regional Decision Teams to "traffic
cop" sites for Early Actions, where appropriate. Early Actions
are short-term, quickly implemented actions designed to
eliminate significant risk from Superfund sites. These would
generally be accomplished by time-critical removal actions,
non-time-critical removal actions, or early action remedial
actions. Long-term remedial actions would be used at sites
requiring ground water restoration, mining sites, extended
incineration projects, and wetlands /estuaries cleanups.
In general, the new approach would reduce the risks to
human health quickly. The changes resulting from this new
process (i.e., the risk reduction) would require a new way of
counting achievements under Superfund. Also, this risk
reduction will need to be communicated effectively to the
general public.
The new Superfund model will be tested on a pilot basis
in the Regions. SACM is discussed in greater detail in Section
XTV: Future Directions of the Superfund Program.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy 1-12
-------
SECTION II
SUPERFUND LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
OVERVIEW
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION,
AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980 (CERCLA)
SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1986
(SARA)
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
ACT OF 1986 (TITLE HI)
NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN (NCP)
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
SECTION II
SUPERFUND LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
OVERVIEW
CERCLA
There are several laws and regulations that guide
Superfund activity. The foundations of the Superfund program
are the:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA)
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) (commonly known as the
National Contingency Plan).
The Federal government's response to hazardous substance
releases is built upon these foundations.
The superfund cleanup program was created by congress
with the passage of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA). CERCLA provided the first Federal response
authority to address the problem of uncontrolled hazardous
waste. In general, CERCLA was designed to:
Give the Federal government the authority to take action
to respond to release or threats of release of hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminants
Develop a comprehensive program to prioritize
hazardous waste site nationwide
Identify and compel potentially parties (PRPs) to conduct
and/or pay for those cleanup wherever possible
Set a $ 1.6 billion Hazardous Substance Response Trust
Fundpopularly known as "Superfund" available to
finance cleanups e.g., where PRPs cannot be found or
are unable to pay for the response
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Il-l
-------
SECTION H - SUPERFUND LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Tax on Chemical and
Petroleum Industries
Trust Fund
SARA
Advance scientific and technological capabilities in all
aspects of hazardous waste management, treatment, and
disposal.
These objectives are intended to significantly improve
hazardous waste management in the future.
The Superfund program was founded on the premise that
the polluter must pay for problems created by the polluter.
CERLCA was specifically designed to ensure that the cleanup
responsibilities and costs are assumed by PRPs and that Trust
Fund monies are generally spent when necessary. Trust Fund
monies are generally spent for site cleanup if EPA cannot
identify the responsible parties, or the PRPs are not
successful. Federal agencies pay for cleanup of Federal
hazardous wastes, such as military bases or weapons plants,
out of their own budgets. They do not use Trust Fund monies.
The monies in the Trust Fund are the result of several
sources. First, CERCLA established a tax on the chemical
and petroleum industries. Specifically, this tax is on crude oil
and 42 different commercial chemicals. In addition to the tax,
Trust Fund monies are also the result of general revenues,
interest earned by the Trust Fund, and cost recoveries from
PRPs.
During the first five years of the Superfund program, two
facts became increasing clear: (1) the problem of uncontrolled
hazardous substances sites was more extensive than originally
though and (2) its solution would therefore be more complex
and time-consuming. Progress in identifying hazardous
substance site, investigating the sites' threats to human health
and the environment, and cleaning up the worst sites was slow
in the early years.
CERCLA was due to be reauthorized in 1985, but delays
in reauthorization severely curtailed Superfund's activities in
late 1985 and 1986. Almost all non-emergency work ceased
as taxing authority ran out and remaining funds were carefully
rationed.
On October 17, 1986, the Superfund program was
reauthorized by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). SARA reflected
EPA'S
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy II-2
-------
experience in administering the complex Superfund program
during its first six years. The reauthorized law made several
important changes and additions to the program. One of the
major features of SARA was that the new Trust Fund was
$8.5 billion. This is more than five times the amount of money
previouslv in the Trust Fund.
SARA introduced many other improvements to the
Superfund program. These improvements had an impact on
nearly every major action and authority under Superfund.
SARA improved the power of:
Removal Actions
The limits on removal actions financed by the Trust Fund
were raised from six months/$l million, financed by the
Trust Fund, to one year/$2 million (although these limits
may be exceeded if an exception is justified).
All removal actions were required to be consistent with
any long-term remedial action.
Remedial Actions
New cleanup goals and schedules were established.
Goals were set for the completion of preliminary
assessments of sites on EPA's inventory of potentially
hazardous sites.
Mandatory deadlines were set for the completion of
critical phases of remedial work at priority sites.
A preference was established for remedies that reduce
the toxicity mobility, or volume of waste through
treatment as a primary element.
EPA was ordered to select remedies that are
cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions to the
maximum extent practicable.
The statute established off-site land disposal without
treatment as the least-preferred alternative.
Enforcement Authorities
The use of settlement tools was encouraged to obtain
agreements with PRPs to pay for and/or conduct the
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy II-3
-------
SECTION H - SUPERFUND LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
cleanup. During the first years of Superfund, EPA realized
that settlements were the most cost-effective way of
preserving Trust Fund resources. Lengthy litigation was
too resource intensive.
Increased criminal penalties were authorized for failure to
report releases of hazardous substances. SARA also
made it a criminal offense to provide false or misleading
information regarding releases.
EPA's access to hazardous substance sites for the
completion of investigations and cleanups was improved.
State Involvement
EPA was required to coordinate with the State during all
phases of a response.
Public Participation
Requirements were established that ensure public
participation and notification during the formulation of
plans for Superfund actions.
Technical assistance grants were authorized so citizens
could hire experts to explain the complexities of
hazardous substance problems and the Superfund
program at NPL sites.
Information repositories and Administrative Records
documenting site information and response activity
decisions were required for each site and must be made
accessible to the public.
Research, Development, and Training
A comprehensive, coordinated research and development
program was initiated. This program included technology
demonstration programs that offer alternatives to
conventional hazardous substance treatment or site
cleanups.
Research and training programs for hazardous substance
response were expanded.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy II-4
-------
In addition to the above improvements, SARA included an
important section that focused on strengthening the rights of
citizens and communities in the face of potential hazardous
substance emergencies. This section is commonly called
"SARA Title m."
TITLE m SARA Title III, the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), was
designed to help communities prepare to respond in the event
of a chemical emergency, and to increase the public's
knowledge of the presence and threat of hazardous
chemicals. SARA Title m established a four-part program to:
1. Define emergency planning structures at the State/local
level and develop local emergency response plans
2. Require emergency notification of chemical releases
3. Require notification of chemical use, storage, and
production activities
4. Report annual emissions requirements.
The organizations responsible for the State/local planning
include State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs)
and Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs).
Under SARA Title IE, facilities must compile information
about extremely hazardous substances they have on site and
the threat posed by those substancess. In addition, those
facilities must report any accidental releases of extremely
hazardous substances. This information must be provided to
State and local authorities, and more specific data must be
made available upon request from those authorities or from
the general public.
Under the Community Right-to-Know provisions of
SARA Title HI, facilities must report to the SERC, LEPC,
and fire department all extremely hazardous substances at
their facility above a certain amount. In addition,
manufacturing facilities must report any routine releases of
toxic chemicals to EPA and the State.
It should be noted that, strictly speaking, SARA Title m
is a separate statute from CERCLA.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy II-5
-------
SECTION H - SUPERFUND LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
NCP
Throughout this manual, specific and relevant
sections of CERCLA are referenced and applied to the
different programs or actions. Henceforth, when
CERCLA is cited, it is CERCLA as ammended by
SARA.
The Superfund response effort is guided by the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan, commonly referred to as the National Contingency
Plan (NCP). The NCP is the regulation that implements
CERCLA. Revised on March 8,1990 (55 FR 8666-8865),
it outlines EPA's national program for response to releases of
hazardous substances. The NCP outlines a step-by-step
process for conducting both removal and remedial actions. In
addition, the NCP defines the roles and responsibilities of
EPA, other Federal agencies, the States, private parties, and
communities in response to situations in which hazardous
substances or oil are released into the environment.
The National Response Team (NRT), made up of
representatives from fourteen Federal agencies, is responsible
for planning and coordinating preparedness and emergency
response actions. Regional Response Teams (RRTs), made
up of designated representatives from each Federal agency
and State government, are responsible for regional planning
and preparedness activities before Superfund emergency
response actions.
The NCP, which actually predates Superfund, was
originally written to implement provisions in the Clean Water
Act having to do with spills of oil and hazardous substances
into navigable waters. It has been revised three times: first to
incorporate the 1980 Superfund program; then in 1985 to
streamline the Superfund process; and most recently in March
of 1990 to address significant changes in the Superfund
program resulting from the enactment of SARA.
The NCP reiterates EPA's goal of selecting remedies that
protect human health and the environment, that maintain
protection over time, and that minimize untreated waste. EPA
believes that treating waste and rendering it nonhazardous
(rather than containing it) is generally the preferred method for
achieving long-term protection. The NCP promotes use of
innovative technologies in order to bolster development of
new methods to ensure long-term protection.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy II-6
-------
The NCP describes the procedures for conducting
Superfund removal actions in response to a release or
threatened release of a hazardous substance which may
present an imminent and substantial danger. The NCP criteria
for selecting a removal action are actual or threat of exposure
from a release, contamination or drinking wells or
ecosystems, and threat of fire or explosion. If a removal
action is warranted, EPA evaluates the situation and selects
a response. This remedy is documented in an Action
Memorandum. If the urgency of the situation allows, the
public will have an opportunity to comment on the removal
action prior to the action.
The NCP sets forth nine criteria for selecting Superfund
remedial actions. The two most important are considered to
be the following threshold criteria:
Overall protection of human health and the environment
Compliance with (or waiver of) requirements of other
Federal and State environmental laws
Each remedy that is selected at a Superfund site must meet
the two threshold criteria.
Potential remedial actions are also evaluated according to
the ftveprimary balancing criteria: Long-term effectiveness
and permanence; toxicity, mobility, or volume of waste; short-
term effectiveness; implementability; and cost. The last two
criteria are the modifying criteria of State acceptance and
community acceptance.
EPA selects its preferred alternative, and releases to the
public a proposed plan documenting why EPA believes that
the preferred alternative is capable of remediating the site.
The public must then have ample opportunity to comment on
all preferred remedies and EPA must consider those
comments in selecting the final remedy. EPA documents the
selected remedy in the Record of Decision (ROD).
Congress expanded the role of communities in SARA.
Consistent with this, the NCP requires EPA to consult with
the public throughout cleanup. EPA must interview community
groups at the start of a cleanup study to identify their concerns
and must prepare a Community Relations Plan
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy II-7
-------
SECTION H - SUPERFUND LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
that addresses those concerns. The public must have ample
opportunity to comment on all proposed remedies and EPA
must consider those comments in selecting the final remedy.
The NCP also reinforces the enforcement authority of
EPA and details procedures for documenting EPA costs and
compiling an administrative record documenting the selection
of a response action.
The NCP defines a major role for States in all cleanup
actions. Under the NCP, qualified States may act as lead
agency for many cleanup actions under a cost-sharing
agreement with EPA. Even when States support rather than
lead the cleanup, they have a crucial role in identifying cleanup
standards and commenting on proposed remedies.
The actual process established by the NCP for handling
hazardous substance problems is discussed further in Section
HI: The Superfund Process.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy II-8
-------
SECTION III
THE SUPERFUND PROCESS
OVERVIEW
S Continuous Enforcement Efforts /Public Participation
SITE DISCOVERY
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT / SITE INSPECTION
REMOVAL ACTIONS
HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM / NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION / FEASIBILITY STUDY
RECORD OF DECISION - REMEDY SELECTION
REMEDIAL DESIGN / REMEDIAL ACTION
SITE COMPLETION/OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
CLOSEOUT / NPL DELETION
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
SECTION III THE SUPERFUND PROCESS
OVERVIEW
Continuous Enforcement Efforts/
Public Participation
As discussed in Section II, the Superfund response
process is guided by the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This plan
outlines several steps that EPA and other agencies must
follow in responding to hazardous substance releases
In brief, the process established by the NCP for handling
hazardous substance releases is as follows:
Identify places where a hazardous substance problem
may exist
Do a preliminary evaluation to assess the degree of
contamination
If the preliminary evaluation reveals there is an emergency
requiring immediate action, take the immediate "removal"
action to remove or stabilize the threat
If the preliminary evaluation reveals longer-term action
may be required to respond to the contamination, begin
"remedial" action evaluation process
If the evaluation process indicates that longer-term action
may be necessary to respond to the contamination, then
conduct an analysis of the specifics of the contamination
(e.g., affected populations) and select, design, and
construct the remedy.
The critical steps in a Superfund response are illustrated in
Exhibit 1. Each separate step has a different set of key
players, and is essential to the ultimate goal of minimizing or
eliminating the threat of a hazardous substance release. This
section provides a general discussion of the major steps in the
Superfund process. Later sections of the manual discuss these
steps in greater detail (e.g., Removal Actions, Remedial
Actions).
At most stages of response, work can be done by a State
or EPA using the Trust Fund, or by potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) as a discovered, PRPs
are sought and if found, negotiations result of
enforcement efforts. As soon as a site is discovered,
PRPs are sought and if found, negotiations
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
SECTION m - THE STJPEKFUND PROCESS
Exhibit 1
The Superfund Process
Continuous
Enforcement
Efforts
Continuous
Public
Participation
Continuous
Operation
and
Maintenance
Site Discovery
Preliminary Assessment (PA)/
Site Inspection (SI)
Hazard Ranking System (HRS)/
National Priorities List (NPL)
Remedial Investigation (Rl)/
Feasibility Study (FS)
i
Remedy Selection/
Record of Decision (ROD)
Remedial Design (RD)/
Remedial Action (RA)
1
Site Completion
Closeout / NPL Deletion
Removal
Action
At Any Point,
As Necessary
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy III-2
-------
SECTION m - THE STJPERFUND PROCESS
SITE DISCOVERY
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT/
SITE INSPECTION
may begin to have the PRPs pay for and/or conduct the
necessary response action. Also, community relations
activities take place throughout the cleanup process to ensure
public participation in the decision-making process.
In the early days of CERCLA, EPA anticipated the entire
scope of hazardous substance problems to be much smaller
than we know it to be today. Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hundreds, but thousands of potentially
hazardous waste sites were discovered.
EPA continues its effort to identify potentially hazardous
sites/ releases that might otherwise go unreported. Many site
discoveries result from information and reports from States,
communities, local authorities, businesses, and citizens. The
National Response Center has set up a 24-hour hotline to
receive information regarding potentially hazardous substance
releases.
All reports of potential sites are entered into the
Superfund site inventory, a computerized data base called
"CERCLIS" (Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System).
Once a site is identified, EPA or the State conducts a site
assessment, beginning with apreliminary assessment (PA)
to determine if the site poses a potential hazard and whether
further action is necessary. During this preliminary assessment,
officials begin by reviewing any available documents about the
site. In addition, there maybe a site visit, but sampling
generally does not occur at this time. If the PA reveals that the
site does not present a potential hazard, the site is designated
as Site Evaluation Accomplished (SEA) and considered
completed.
If the PA reveals a contamination problem exists but does
not pose an immediate threat, EPA will perform a more
extensive study called the site inspection (SI). Typically, the
SI involves a site visit and sample collection to define and
further characterize the site's problems. If the site presents an
imminent threat, EPA may use Trust Fund monies to effect
immediate removal action.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy III-3
-------
SECTION m - THE STJPEKFUND PROCESS
REMOVAL ACTIONS
HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM/
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
Often in conjunction with the site inspection, EPA makes
every effort to search for and identify PRPs. As discussed
earlier, one of the central premises of CERCLA is the notion
that the responsible party must pay. From the very start, EPA
uses its authority under CERCLA to settle with or compel
PRPs to pay for and/or conduct necessary response actions.
A removal action is a short-term action intended to
stabilize or clean up an incident or site which poses an
imminent threat to human health or the environment. Removal
actions may be conducted, for example, to clean up the spill
of hazardous materials when a truck or train overturns, to
keep the public from being exposed to hazardous substances,
or to protect a drinking water supply from contamination.
Typical removal actions include removing tanks or drums of
hazardous substances on the surface, installing fencing or
other security measures, and providing an alternate source of
drinking water to local residents. In the event of longer-term
cleanup requirements, the site is referred to the remedial
program for further investigation and assessment.
Because removal actions are generally intended to reduce
or eliminate imminent threats from contamination and are
short-term actions, environmental problems such as area-
wide contamination of ground water are not normally
addressed. However, removal actions may reduce the cost of
longer-term cleanup by controlling the migration of the
hazardous substance or by eliminating the source of the
additional contamination. Therefore removal actions may
occur at NPL and non-NPL sites.
Removal actions are discussed in greater detail in Section
V: Removal Actions.
Based on information obtained from the site inspection,
EPA uses the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) to evaluate
the potential relative risks to public health and the
environment. The HRS is a numerically-based, scoring system
that uses information from the PA and SI to assign each site
a score ranging from 0 to 100. This score is based on:
The likelihood that a site has released, or has the potential
to release, contaminants into the environment
The characteristics of the substance(s), i.e., toxicity and
quantity
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy III-4
-------
SECTION m - THE STJPERFUND PROCESS
The people or sensitive environments affected by the
release.
Remedial Responses
Two main phases:
RI/FS
RD/RA
The HRS score is used as a screening mechanism to
determine whether the site should be considered for further
action under CERCLA. It does not determine if cleanup is
possible or worthwhile, nor the amount of cleanup needed.
Sites with HRS scores of 28.50 or higher are considered
for placement on EPA's National Priorities List (NPL).
Sites on the NPL represent the priority hazardous substance
sites, nationwide. These sites are eligible for long-term
remedial actions financed through the Superfund program.
Congress required EPA to create the NPL to identify the
most serious sites, focus its efforts on those sites, and take
into account the many other sites in need of attention when
deciding how much Trust Fund money to spend on a
particular site. This ensured that Superfund monies were spent
on the most serious problems, and avoided exhausting the
Trust Fund on an individual site. The purpose of the NPL is
to notify the public of sites that EPA decides may represent
a long-term threat to public health or the environment and
may need remedial action. Only sites on the NPL are eligible
for long-term remedial response using Trust Fund money.
However, removal actions and enforcement actions may be
taken at both NPL and non-NPL sites if there is a threat to
public health or the environment.
The entire site assessment process, and its components,
are discussed in greater detail in Section VT: Site Assessment.
Remedial responses are generally longer-term actions
that eliminate or substantially reduce releases, or threatened
releases, of hazardous substances that pose a threat to human
health and the environment, but that are not immediately
threatening. Trust Fund-financed remedial responses are
undertaken only at sites on the NPL.
Remedial responses have two main phases: the remedial
investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS), and the remedial
design/remedial action (RD/RA). During the RI/FS,
conditions at the site are studied, the problem(s) are
identified, and alternative methods to clean up the site are
evaluated. The RI/FS is an interactive process that may take
two years or more to complete.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy III-5
-------
SECTION m - THE STJPEKFUND PROCESS
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/
FEASIBILITY STUDY
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDY SELECTION
REMEDIAL DESIGN/
REMEDIAL ACTION
SITE COMPLETION/
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
During a remedial investigation (RI), EPA, the State,
or the PRP (with EPA or State oversight) collects and
analyzes information to determine the nature and extent of
contamination at the site. As information on the extent of
contamination becomes known, the feasibility study is begun.
During the feasibility study (FS), specific alternative
remedies are considered and evaluated by EPA and the
public. These may include removal of hazardous substances
from the site and moving them to an EPA- or
State-approved, licensed hazardous waste facility for
treatment, containment, or destruction, safely containing the
waste on-site, or destroying or treating the waste on-site
through incineration or other treatment technologies.
Generally, a preferred remedy is ultimately identified from
the list of alternative remedies evaluated during the RI/ FS.
This preferred remedy is presented to the public, for
comment, in a Proposed Plan. Once comments have been
received and evaluated, a final remedy is selected and
documented in a Record of Decision (ROD).
In the remedial design and action stage, the
recommended cleanup is designed, then undertaken. The
design phase can take up to one year, and, in some cases,
even longer. The time required to complete the remedy varies
according to the complexity of the remedy.
As discussed earlier, EPA often conducts both removal
and remedial actions at NPL sites. Removal actions may be
required during a remedial action if an immediate threat is
discovered during the course of the remedial work.
Following remedial actions, steps must be followed to
ensure that the cleanup methods are working properly. Once
the remedy implemented isoperational and functional and
meets its designated environmental, technical, legal and
institutional requirements, it will be considered a site
completion. Once the remedial actions are completed
continuing site operation and maintenance (O&M)
activities are conducted to maintain the effectiveness of the
remedy and to ensure that no new threat to human health or
the environment arises. The responsibility for O&M activities,
if any, are ultimately assumed by the States or the PRPs.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy III-6
-------
SECTION m - THE STJPERFUND PROCESS
CLOSEOUT / NPL DELETION
However, EPA is responsible for actively reviewing O&M
activity and schedule throughout the life of the remedy.
Once a response action has been completed, the site often
must be monitored, maintained, and ultimately closed out.
Following removal actions, several things must be done to
prepare for site closeout. When planning for a site closeout,
EPA must ensure that all waste is properly disposed, that all
equipment is decontaminated and demobilized, that
temporarily relocated citizens are returned to their homes, and
that response-related damages are remedied, i.e., site is
restored. The actual completion date of a removal is defined
as the date when all previously specified work is completed
and the contractor, PRPs, and EPA representatives have
permanently demobilized.
For remedial responses, once a site is certified to be
complete, EPA submits its intention to delete the site from
the NPL by publishing a notice in the Federal Register.
However, it should be noted that EPA cannot certify site
completion and consider NPL deletion if the hazardous
substance is still located on-site, e.g., a containment remedy
was used. If the hazardous substance remains on-site, a
five-year review of the site must be conducted before the site
can be considered for NPL deletion.
As a part of site closeout, a closeout report is prepared
to document that the State or PRP will ensure O&M activities
are performed, and that EPA has completed its
responsibilities.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy III-7
-------
SECTION IV
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
GOALS OF THE ENFORCEMENT
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
- CERCLA Enforcement Authority
- Other Statutory Enforcement Authority
THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
- PRP Search and Identification
- Negotiations
Settlements and Settlement Tools
Oversight of PRP Work
- Cost Recovery
KEY PLAYERS IN THE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
EPA
- Other Federal Agencies
States
Natural Resources Trustees
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
SECTION IV ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
GOALS OF THE
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
The basic principle of the Superfund enforcement
program is to make the responsible party pay for the
response activities needed to clean up sites. When Congress
passed CERCLA in 1980, it set as a guiding policy the
principle that those responsible for the hazardous substances
at a site should bear the burden of the cleanup. Consistent
with this principle, Congress enacted strong enforcement
provisions. These provisions were enhanced in 1986 with the
passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA).
CERCLA section 101(25) defines response activities to
include three different types of actions: removal, remedial, and
enforcement. Although enforcement activities are not cleanup
activities, they are included in the definition of response
actions under Superfund. Enforcement includes the activities
EPA undertakes to encourage or, if necessary, compel a
potentially responsible party (PRP) to clean up a site or to
recover costs of cleanup from potentially responsible parties.
The enforcement program relies heavily upon the statutory
authority provided by CERCLA, particularly sections 104,
106, 107, and 122. These CERCLA sections are discussed
in greater detail later in this section.
to:
The two principal goals of the enforcement program are
Obtain cleanups from PRPs through voluntary
settlement, unilateral orders, or litigation
Oversee PRP-conducted cleanups to ensure that
remedies are protective of public health and environment
and implemented in compliance with the terms of the
settlement agreement.
As a part of this oversight, the enforcement program
ensures that the studies or cleanup activities are performed
correctly and in accordance with the order or decree, the
statute, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), and relevant guidance.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy IV-1
-------
SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
CERCLA Enforcement Authority
CERCLA
Enforcement Authority
Section 104
Section 106
Section 107
Section 122
If PRP response is not voluntarily obtained or is not
adequate, EPA can either issue an order to compel the PRP
to conduct the cleanup., or conduct the necessary cleanup
itself and fund the cleanup with Federal Trust Fund monies. In
the latter situations where EPA has performed removal or
remedial activities at the site or incurred any enforcement
costs, the enforcement program's goal is to recover those
costs from the PRPs. Cost recovery actions are essential both
to replenish the Trust Fund and to deter other PRPs from
trying to avoid responsibility for performing response actions
themselves.
The goals of the enforcement program apply to both
remedial and removal responses. The process is similar for
both responses, but many of the steps are abbreviated for
removals.
CERCLA provides EPA with a strong foundation for
obtaining PRP cooperation in cleaning up contaminated sites.
The enforcement authorities provided by CERCLA are
outlined below. In addition, other laws that provide further
enforcement authorities are discussed.
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, provides EPA with
the authority and necessary tools to respond directly or to
compel PRPs to respond to releases or threatened releases
of hazardous substances. Also, CERCLA includes criminal
penalties, authorizes EPA to issue unilateral administrative
orders, and provides for settlement agreements. The sections
of CERCLA that provide EPA with enforcement authority
include sections 104, 106, 107, and 122.
Section 104(e) of CERCLA gives EPA the authority to
issue information requests. The purposes of these information
requests include:
Gather information and evidence of PRP liability
Gather information on financial viability of PRPs
Identify resistant PRPs early in the enforcement process.
EPA also can use the authority under section 104(e) to obtain
site access.
Section 106 of CERCLA includes authority for EPA to
unilaterally order PRPs to implement site cleanups when there
is imminent and substantial endangerment presented by the
site.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy IV-2
-------
SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Section 107(a) of CERCLA establishes authority for the
recovery of all response action costs and recovery of all
damages to natural resources. Section 107(e)(s) provides for
the recovery of up to three times EPA's response costs, if
PRPs have failed to comply satisfactorily with a section 106
unilateral administrative order. EPA may recover costs
through a number of actions, including demand letters,
negotiations with PRPs, arbitration, administrative settlement,
judicial settlement, and litigation.
Section 122 of CERCLA provides settlement "tools" that
may be used to encourage PRPs to negotiate a settlement for
site cleanup. It is EPA's policy to allow the PRP to conduct
the response when the PRP:
Can demonstrate it is technically qualified /capable of
performing necessary activities in a timely manner
Agrees to conduct the response in accordance with the
terms of the administrative order or consent decree
Reimburses the Trust Fund for oversight costs incurred
by EPA.
Section 122 authorizes EPA to enter into agreements with
PRPs that allow the PRPs to conduct all or part of the
response activities.
Other Statutory Enforcement In addition to the authorities provided by CERCLA, EPA
Authority may use authorities provided by other environmental laws.
For example, under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA can order owners and
operators of operating hazardous waste facilities and
hazardous waste facilities in the process of closing to
investigate any potential leaks and to clean up the facility if
necessary. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and
its regulations can be used by EPA to impose conditions on
the handling of particularly hazardous substances, such as
asbestos and PCBs. In addition, in some cases where
releases affect surface waters, the provisions of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), including amendments from the Oil
Pollution Act (OP A), can be used to impose fines and require
cleanup.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy IV-3
-------
SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
THE ENFORCEMENT The overall Superfund program involves an integrated
PROCESS process of bothenforcement and Trust Fund-financed
activities aimed at achieving the overall goal of site cleanup. In
general, EPA:
Searches for and identifies PRPs who maybe liable for
site response
Attempts to negotiate agreements with the PRPs to
perform studies or cleanup
Enters into settlements with the PRPs where possible
Oversees the site work that the PRPs perform under the
settlement.
These steps are discussed below in greater detail.
If the PRPs do not settle, EPA may do one or more of the
following:
Issue an administrative order to compel the PRPs to
perform the cleanup
Sue the PRPs to implement an administrative order, or
seek treble damages in a cost recovery action
Conduct the cleanup, using Trust Fund monies, and later
pursue cost recovery from the PRPs.
The basic enforcement process is illustrated in Exhibit 2.
Section 107(a) of CERCLA identifies four classes ofPRPs:
Current facility owners and/or operators
Past facility owners and operators at the time of disposal
of a hazardous substance
Person(s) who arranged for treatment or disposal of
hazardous substances (e.g., generators)
Transporters of hazardous substances who selected the
disposal site.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy IV4
-------
SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Exhibit 2
The Basic Enforcement Process
Issue
General
Notice Letters
Issue
Special Notice
Letters
Site
Discovery
Exchange
Information
PRP
Response/
EPA Oversight
Negotiate
Settlement
Negotiations
Successful?
RI/FS Negotiations
with a 60-90 day
Response Moratorium
RD/RA Negotiations
with a 60-120 day
Response Moratorium
No
Issue
Administrative
Order
PRP
Response/
EPA Oversight I
Initiate Other
Enforcement
Options
Refer case to Department of Justice to enforce UAO
Seek Treble Damages
Use Trust Fund monies to clean up site and recover
costs from PRP(s)
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy IV-5
-------
SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
PRP Search and Identification
CERCLA imposes joint and several liability for all response
costs incurred at the site, that are not inconsistent with the
NCP, if a person falls within one of these four classes.
EPA attempts to identify any parties that may be liable for
the release or threat of release of a hazardous substance at a
site as early as possible, ideally before a site is proposed for
listing on the NPL. This identification process is known as a
PRP search. The search seeks to identify the generators,
transporters, owners, and/or operators of a site. This may
involve detailed title searches, employee interviews,
documentation reviews, interviews with site operators and
transporters, interviews with neighboring industries, site
visitsto document obvious evidence (e.g., labels onthebarrels
on site), etc. In addition, EPA generally sends out section
104(e) information request letters to those whom EPA thinks
may have knowledge of operations at the site.
PRPs that are identified by this process are notified of
their potential liability via a general notice letter, and are
informed that they will have the opportunity to negotiate with
EPA to conduct site cleanup. Either before or with this
notification, EPA also may include an information request to
determine the extent of PRP liability.
If a party is identified as a PRP, CERCLA imposes strict
liability for all response costs incurred at the site that are not
inconsistent with the NCP. This means that legal responsibility
is imposed without regard to fault, and diligence generally is
no defense. When more than one PRP is involved at a site
and the harm is indivisible (such as in the case of intermingled
drums, commingled wastes and contaminated soil or ground
water), the court may impose joint and several liability
upon all parties involved at the site. If joint and several liability
is imposed on the PRPs, each PRP involved at the site is
individually liable for the cost of the entire response action.
However, EPA's practice is to attempt to identify and notify
the universe of PRPs and to issue orders and litigate against
the largest manageable number of parties.
A PRP's liability is subject to the very limited defenses
listed in CERCLA section 107(b). A PRP can avoid liability
only by proving that the release or threatened release was
caused solely by: (1) an act of God; or (2) an act of war; or,
(3) in certain narrow circumstances, a third party who was
not a
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy IV-6
-------
SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Negotiations
PRPs
PRP employee and who did not have a contractual
relationship with the PRP. In cases where the PRP raises the
defense that the release was caused solely by a third party,
the PRP will be excused from liability only if the PRP can
prove that he/she exercised due care and took precautions
against foreseeable acts or omissions of these third parties.
Also, under section 101 (35) (A) of CERCLA, a person who
acquired property after the hazardous substance was
disposed or placed on the facility may raise the innocent
landowner defense. To assert this defense, the defendant must
prove that he/she acquired the property without knowing, or
having reason to know, that hazardous substances were
disposed of in, on, or at the property. To establish that he/she
had no reason to know of such disposal, the PRP must have
undertaken all appropriate inquiry at the time of acquisition.
A private party may also avoid liability by establishing that
he/she is a subsequent owner of the land who acquired the
site through bequest or inheritance, and that the party
exercised due care and took precautions against the
foreseeable acts and omissions of the third party.
When there is sufficient information to identify PRPs, EPA
normally issues a general notice letter to each PRP notifying
them of their potential liability. As soon as PRPs are
identified, EPA begins exchanging information with them
concerning site conditions and other PRPs involved at the site.
Based on information obtained during the PRP search and
information exchange process, EPA also may issue special
notice letters to PRPs. The special notice letter begins a
formal negotiation period and establishes a moratorium of 60
days on certain response and enforcement activities. During
the negotiation period, EPA and the PRPs try to reach an
agreement wherein the PRPs finance and conduct the work.
If within 60 days, PRPs make a "good-faith offer" to conduct
the response action, the moratorium may be extended to
provide additional time for reaching a final settlement. For
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) negotiations,
the moratorium may be extended an additional 30 days; for
remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) negotiations, it may
be extended an additional 60 days.
In general, the purpose of these negotiations is to reach
agreement that the PRPs will perform the RI/FS or the RD/
RA and pay past costs and oversight costs incurred by EPA.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy IV-7
-------
SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Settlements and Settlement Tools
A settlement agreement may be signed if EPA is confident in
the PRP»s capabilities to conduct the response activities. With
most agreements, EPA is responsible for overseeing the work
ofPRPs.
If no agreement is reached with the PRPs, EPA can
either:
Issue a unilateral administrative order to force liable,
financially viable PRPs to conduct the response action
(this occurs very infrequently for RI/FS activities), or
Use Trust Fund monies to perform the work and later
seek to recover response costs incurred.
Generally, EPA will do the work at a site only when a
settlement cannot be reached or when the PRPs fail to
comply with an administrative or judicial order.
If negotiations are successful, EPA and the PRPs sign a
legal document that sets forth the requirements for study or
cleanup. The type of settlement agreement differs with the
type of work required at the site. There are two general types
of settlement agreements, administrative and judicial.
Administrative settlements are authorized by CERCLA,
initiated by EPA, and not required to go through court
approval. Even though they do not require initial court
approval, administrative settlements arejudicially enforceable.
Judicial settlements are filed by DOJ on behalf of EPA in
court.
More specifically, the administrative and judicial
documents that finalize settlements include the following:
Administrative Orders on Consent (AOCs)
AOCs are binding agreements between EPA and PRPs.
AOCs, to become effective, require the PRP's and
Regional Administrator's signature. Removals and RI/FS
negotiations are usually resolved with AOCs.
Consent Decrees (CDs) A CD is similar to an
AOC, except that it is a judicial action which must be
filed in court, published in the Federal Register for public
comment, and approved by a judge before it becomes
final. Like
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy IV-8
-------
SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
AOCs, CDs provide information on the site's
background, name the parties bound by the decree,
describe the roles and responsibilities of the bound
parties, and set forth performance standards that the
remedy must meet and stipulated penalties for not
complying with those standards. CDs also detail financial
agreements with regard to financial assurances and
reimbursement of costs, and address liability issues with
respect to indemnification and insurance, covenants not to
sue, and re-openers. Whenever EPA enters into an
agreement where the PRPs are to perform the remedial
actions, the agreement will be in the form of a consent
decree. CDs are not the preferred mechanism for RI/FS
or removal actions because administrative settlements
maybe processed more quickly.
If settlements are not achieved, there are several enforcement
options available to EPA:
Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAOs) UAOs
are most commonly used to order PRPs to conduct
cleanup activities when negotiations fail. UAOs are a
powerful enforcement tool that EPA may use to help
achieve PRP response. UAOs provide an especially
effective method of achieving timely site cleanup. In
removal situations where time is limited, UAOs may be
issued without prior negotiations. PRPs may face
statutory penalties of $25,000 per day and costly litigation
if they do not comply with the terms of a UAO. If the
PRP is not cooperative, UAO issuance sets the stage for
EPA to recover up to three times its response costs,
known as treble damages.
Litigation/Judgments If a PRP refuses EPA or
another PRP access to the site, pursuant to section
104(e) EPA may seek a court order to obtain site access.
Also, if EPA and the PRPs fail to reach an agreement that
the PRPs will finance or conduct the cleanup, EPA may
use section 106 authorities to order PRP cleanup or
section 107 to recover its response costs. To pursue a
judicial action, EPA refers the case to DOJ for filing with
the court. Lawsuits are generally used as a last resort
because they tend to be time consuming and costly. A
judgment is a legally binding decision made by the court.
It results from a section 104, 106, 107, or 106 /107
lawsuit.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy IV-9
-------
SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
There are several important settlement tools that EPA
may use to facilitate PRP settlements. These include:
Mixed Funding Settlements These are settlements
whereby EPA settles with fewer than all PRPs for less
than 100 percent of the response costs, and where EPA
agrees to use Trust Fund money for some or all of the
short fall. EPA then later seeks to recover the costs of
that portion of the cleanup it funded. Also under this type
of settlement, a PRP can agree to a mixed work
settlement where the PRP provides cleanup services in
lieu of funding.
De Minimis Settlements These are final settlements
that have been determined to be: (1) only a minor portion
of the total response costs at the site, and (2) practicable
and in the public interest. These settlements are used if the
hazardous substances contributed by the PRP are minimal
in amount and toxicity, in comparison to other hazardous
substances at the site. A de minimis settlement may be
incorporated into a global agreement with the major
contributors and EPA.
Non-Binding Allocations of Responsibility
(NBARs) These are allocations of the costs of
response among the PRPs, at a facility. The NBAR
allocation process is based primarily on the volume of
hazardous substances contributed by the PRPs, although
other factors, (e.g., toxicity and mobility of the hazardous
substances, and relative treatment costs) may be
considered.
It is important to note that the objective of negotiations under
EPA's settlement policy is to collect 100 percent of cleanup
costs from PRPs or obtain a commitment from them to
perform the entire response action at the site. When there is
a partial settlement, it is very important to litigate against
non-settlers as soon as possible. In most cases, this is a cost
recovery action.
Oversight of PRP Work The PRPs can begin work at the site once the AOC is
signed or CD is entered into Federal Court. However,
because of a time lag between when the court receives the
CD for RD/RA and actually enters it as a final judgment, EPA
encourages PRPs to begin the design activities for the remedy
before the
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy IV-10
-------
SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Cost Recovery
KEY PLAYERS IN THE
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
EPA
CD is entered. EPA closely monitors all work at the site. This
may include on-site examination of the PRPs or their
contractors, review of all reports, and parallel sampling and
analysis to ensure accuracy. CERCLA section 104 requires
the PRPs to pay for EPA's RI/FS oversight expenses
(including contractor support of EPA oversight efforts) as a
part of the settlement. In other contexts, EPA seeks to obtain
this reimbursement of oversight costs as a policy matter.
If negotiations with the PRPs are not successful, EPA
may choose to perform the work and seek to recover its
costs later. To recover its costs, EPA usually issues a demand
letter, and if the PRPs do not reimburse EPA's costs, EPA
refers a judicial action to DOJ to pursue the PRPs. If a total
of $500,000 or less in response costs are incurred at a
facility, EPA may settle with the PRPs directly using an
administrative order. If more than a total of $500,000 in
response costs is incurred at a site, written approval of the
Attorney General is required if EPA settles the case
administratively.
The Superfund enforcement program requires close
coordination between the many players in EPA, other Federal
agencies, and the States. While roles may vary among the
Regions, they generally include initiating negotiations,
settlements, and cost recovery actions, and overseeing PRP
response actions.
The On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) and Remedial
Project Managers (RPMs) play the lead role in planning
and coordinating site removal, remediation and enforcement
activities. In addition to personnel from Federal agencies and
the States, other Regional staff (in particular, the Office of
Regional Counsel (ORC), staff from the Environmental
Services Division, and Community Relations), and
Headquarters staff may play active roles.
Attorneys from ORC act as the Region's primary legal
advisors whenever an enforcement action is being considered
at a site. They may take the lead in negotiations with PRPs,
review information exchanged between EPA and PRPs, assist
in obtaining site access, review the administrative record, and
act as the primary communication link between EPA and
DOJ if EPA litigates against the PRPs.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy IV-11
-------
SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Other Federal Agencies
States
Natural Resource Trustees
In addition to EPA, the Department of Justice is
significantly involved in the Superfund enforcement program.
DOJ is involved in any enforcement action that must be filed
in court and serves as a resource in all negotiations that may
result in settlement. DOJ presents legal positions that explain
EPA's goals to the court, and usually provides the only
communication between EPA and the courts regarding site-
specific litigation. In addition, DOJ is the official
representative of EPA in negotiations that take place while a
case is pending before a court. As noted earlier, the Attorney
General must also approve any claim that is negotiated and
settled, whether by consent decree or by administrative order
on consent, where the total response costs at the site exceed
$500,000.
The role of States in the enforcement program is
substantial but varies depending on whether the State is the
lead or support agency at the particular site. If EPA has the
lead, it must notify the State of planned negotiations and
provide it with an opportunity to participate. Subject to the
provisions of CERCLA section 121 (f), States also have the
right to be a party to any settlement. States may also perform
oversight activities. If a State has the lead role at a site, it may
negotiate directly with the PRPs and issue orders under State
legal authority, and EPA assumes a support role.
At any site where natural resources may have been
damaged, EPA must coordinate with the trustee of those
resources. The trustee may be a Federal agency, such as the
Department of the Interior, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, or the Department of
Agriculture, or it may be a State agency (designated by a
governor), or there may be both Federal and State trustees
for the site. EPA must notify natural resource trustees of
settlement negotiations with PRPs and allow trustees to
participate in negotiations of matters within their domain.
Trustees are the only entities authorized to give PRPs
assurances that they will not sue for damages to natural
resources in settlement agreements.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy IV-12
-------
SECTION V
REMOVAL ACTIONS
OVERVIEW
TYPES OF REMOVAL ACTIONS
S Emergency Removal Actions
S Time-Critical Removal Actions
S Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions
CRITERIA FOR CONDUCTING A REMOVAL ACTION
KEY PLAYERS
S EPA
S PRPs
S USCG
S Other Federal Agencies
S States
S Others
STATUTORY LIMITS
THE REMOVAL PROCESS
S Notification or Discovery
S Removal Site Evaluation
S Action Memorandum
S Response Action
S Site Closeout
S Post Removal Site Control
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
SECTION V REMOVAL ACTIONS
OVERVIEW Removal actions are generally short-term response
actions taken to abate or mitigate imminent substantial threats
to human health and the environment and are generally surface
cleanups. Removal actions can be triggered by burning,
leaking, explosion, or other hazardous occurrences that
cannot wait for remedial action. As a results of the short-term
nature of these actions, CERCLA, as amended by SARA,
sets $2 million and 12 month limits on Trust Fund-financed
removal actions.
Superfund removal actions have occurred in response to
all of the following types of incidents:
Critical threat at an active or inactive production
facility any incident at ongoing or former operations
that manufacture(d), recycle(d), handle(d), store(d), or
transport(ed) hazardous substances or waste as a primary
ingredient, product, or by-product of operations or any
location contaminated due to off-site migration of
hazardous substances or wastes from such operations.
Critical threat at an active or inactive waste
management facility any incident at an ongoing or
former, legal or illegal, operation or site whose primary
purpose is (was) to handle, exchange, transfer, store,
treat, or dispose of hazardous substances or wastes from
such a facility or site.
Midnight dump any illegal dumping of hazardous
substances or suspected hazardous substances into the
air, land, water, or other element, whether accidental or
deliberate.
Transportation-related any release or potential
release of hazardous substances due to a transportation
situation, accident, or malfunction. (Local authorities
usually respond to hazardous releases resulting from
transportation-related incidents. The Superfund program
also has the authority to respond, if necessary, under the
removal program to such emergencies.)
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy V-l
-------
SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
TYPES OF REMOVAL
ACTIONS
Other any release to the environment of hazardous
substances that does not conform to one of the above
categories and/or a release where the source of the
contaminant is unknown.
Exhibit 3 illustrates the approximate distribution of removal
actions according to the above types of incidents.
Each removal action is prompted by the unique
circumstances of a release or potential release of hazardous
substances. The following removal actions are generally
appropriate in the situations described:
Fences, warning signs, or other security or site control
precautions - where restricted access is required
Drainage controls (e.g., run-off or run-on diversion)
where needed to reduce migration of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants off-site or to
prevent precipitation or run-off from other sources (e.g.,
flood waters, from entering the release area from other
areas)
Stabilization of berms, dikes, or impoundments, or
drainage or closing of lagoons where needed to maintain
the integrity of the containment structures
Placement of a cap on contaminated soils or sledges -
where needed to reduce migration of hazardous
substances or pollutants or contaminants into soil, ground
or surface water, or air
Utilization of chemicals and other materials to retard the
spread of the release or to mitigate its effects - where the
use of such chemicals will reduce the spread of the
release
Excavation, consolidation, or removal of highly
contaminated soils from drainage or other areas where
removal will reduce the spread of or direct contact with
contamination
Removal of drums, barrels, tanks, or other bulk
containers that contain or may contain hazardous ignitable
or explosive substances or pollutants or contaminants -
where it will reduce the likelihood of spillage, leakage,
and exposure to humans, animals, or the food chain
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy V-2
-------
SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
Exhibit 3
Removal Actions by Type of Incident
Production
Facilities - 30%
Waste Management
Facilities-17%
Midnight Dumps -16%
Transportation
Related -<1%
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy V-3
-------
SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
Containment, treatment, disposal, or incineration of
hazardous materials - where needed to reduce the
likelihood of human, animal, or food chain exposure
Provision of alternative water supply - where it will
reduce the likelihood of exposure to contaminated water.
If reported releases consist of oil, the CERCLA petroleum
exclusion forbids CERCLA response. The CWA. and the
amendments in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OP A) provide
the authority and funding for responses to oil spills into or
threatening U.S. waters.
Emergency Removal Actions
Time- Critical Removal Actions
EPA categorizes removal actions in three ways,
emergency, time-critical, and non-time-critical, based on
the type of situation, the urgency and threat of the release or
potential release, and the subsequent time frame in which the
action must be initiated. Emergency and time-critical removals
are in response to releases requiring action within six months;
non-time-critical removals are in response to releases
requiring action that can start later than six months.
Emergency removal actions are necessary when there
is a release that requires on-site activities within hours of the
determination that a removal action is appropriate. Such
removal actions are likely to occur as a result of:
Discovery of high concentrations of hazardous substances
in human high traffic areas such as residential areas,
alleyways, and recreational areas.
Fire or explosion at production facilities and hazardous
waste treatment, storage, or disposal sites
Time-critical removal actions are those where the lead
agency determines, based on the site evaluation, that a
removal action is appropriate and must be initiated within six
months. Time-critical removal actions typically involve:
Dangerous concentrations of acutely toxic substances
Threat of rapid and/or wide off-site migration
Likelihood of fire or explosion
Acute threat to human health and/or environment.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy V4
-------
SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
Non-Time-Critical Removal
Actions
CRITERIA FOR
CONDUCTING A REMOVAL
ACTION
Non-time-critical removal actions are those where
the lead agency determines, based on the site evaluation, that
a removal action is appropriate but a planning period of more
than six months is available before on-site activities must
begin. Non-time-critical removal actions typically involve:
A secure site
No nearby population center
Storage containers in stable condition
A dangerous concentration of chronic toxic substances.
Examples of non-time-critical removal actions may
include removal of stable drums discovered during a remedial
action, or excavation of low-level radioactive materials from
property with restricted access.
The National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) lists the following factors to
consider in determining if a removal action is appropriate:
Actual or potential exposure of hazardous substances to
a human or animal food chain
Actual or potential contamination of drinking water or
sensitive ecosystems
Threat of fire or explosion
Hazardous substances in containers that pose a threat of
release
Highly contaminated soils at the surface that may migrate
Weather conditions that may cause substances to migrate
An imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare, or the environment as a result of
pollutants or contaminants, i.e., substances not already
defined by CERCLA as "hazardous"
Unavailability of other response or enforcement
mechanisms.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy V-5
-------
SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
KEY PLAYERS
The OSC uses the above criteria to determine if a removal
action is appropriate, then also considers the following criteria
for a proposed removal action:
If financed by the Trust Fund, the potential response
action should remain within the $2 million/12 month
statutory limits on removal actions set by CERCLA
(unless an exemption based on urgency or consistency
with a remedial action to be taken can be requested on a
case-by-case basis).
In general, sites or operable units with a signed Record of
Decision (ROD) should not be cleaned up using removal
authority.
Most removal actions do not require extensive study or
long-term response except, perhaps, non-time-critical
removal actions.
EPA Regions have been delegated authority to consider
exemptions to the one-year limit. EPA Headquarters,
however, considers exemptions to the dollar limit for removal
actions on a case-by-case basis.
The Superfund removal program is not performed by
EPA alone. Many participants contribute to successful
removal actions and to the program's overall success. Other
participants may include:
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
Other Federal Agencies
States
Contractors
Citizens.
EPA
For most Trust Fund-financed, or CERCLA enforcement
sites, EPA ultimately ensures that removal actions comply
with all the requirements of the NCP, regardless of who
participates in or leads the response action. However, in
certain instances the USCG ultimately ensures that removal
actions comply with all the requirements of the NCP.
EPA's Emergency Response Division (ERD), located at
EPA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., is responsible for
planning and coordinating the Superfund removal program.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy V-6
-------
SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
OSCs
PRPs
USCG
Other Federal Agencies
Much of the authority for daily operations is delegated to
the ten EPA Regions. OSCs in each Region manage
individual removal actions and are authorized to expend Trust
Fund monies. Typically, they oversee contractors or PRPs
who perform the actual cleanup work. OSCs may receive
assistance during the course of a removal action from several
specialized teams of experts within and outside of EPA. For
example, the Environmental Response Team (ERT), a
part of ERD, includes biologists, chemists, environmental
scientists, and engineers. These experts provide technical
advice on all aspects of removal actions including sampling
and analysis, site safety, cleanup techniques, and waste
disposal.
PRPs may undertake removal actions in response to
EPA's issuance of an administrative order. Before issuing an
administrative order, the OSC determines if PRPs or State /
local agencies are able and willing to respond. If they are not
able and willing and no one is responding, then a Trust Fund-
financed removal action is necessary.
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) representative serves
as the OSC for oil discharges and hazardous substance
releases in the coastal zone. The USCG OSC shall contact
the EPA remedial project manager (RPM) as soon as it is
evident that the removal may require a follow-up remedial
action.
Other Federal agencies that participate in the removal
process include the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR), the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department
of Energy (DOE) have been delegated response authority,
under Executive Order 12580, to conduct emergency and
non-emergency removal actions with respect to releases or
threatened releases from their own facilities. DoD and DOE
must use their own resources to pay for any removal actions
they conduct. EPA OSCs are frequently called upon to
manage or assist at a DoD release which has the potential for
migrating off-site or was released from a military reservation.
All other Federal agencies are authorized to conduct non-
emergency removal actions only.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy V-7
-------
SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
States
Others
STATUTORY LIMITS
A State may act as lead agency to carry out a Trust
Fund-financed removal action through a cooperative
agreement (CA) if EPA determines that it is a non-time critical
removal and that this lead will result in the most efficient
method of threat mitigation.
A wide variety of special forces and teams, Federal
agency resources, contractor support services, State, and
other resources are available to assist the OSC in the removal
process. The services of each organization are explained in
the NCP and the Superfund Removal Procedures Manual.
For emergency and time-critical removal actions, citizens
are provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed
action within 60 days of its initiation. They provide this input
during the public comment period when EPA makes the
technical file that forms the basis for selecting the site remedy,
the Administrative Record, available for public review. EPA
responds to this input by providing information to the
community and considering the concerns and interests raised.
For non-time-critical removals, public comment is solicited
prior to selection of the removal action. For more information
regarding citizens' roles in the Superfund process, see Section
X: Community Relations /Public Participation.
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, limits the cost and
duration of Trust Fund-financed removal actions to $2 million
and 12 months. The $2 million limit includes all obligations
from the Trust Fund associated with a particular site, except
for costs of studies or investigations that may be necessary or
appropriate to plan and direct response actions or to recover
costs thereof. The 12-month limit is calculated in calendar
days from the date on-site removal work begins to the date
of demobilization. However, in special circumstances, such as
a continuing emergency or an action that will be consistent
with future remedial activity, removal actions may exceed
these limits.
A request for an exemption to the statutory limits may be
approved if it is determined that:
Continued response actions are immediately required to
prevent, limit, or mitigate an emergency, and
There is an immediate risk to public welfare or the
environment, and
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy V-8
-------
SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
THE REMOVAL PROCESS
Notification or Discovery
Removal Site Evaluation
Such assistance will not otherwise be provided on a
timely basis, or
The removal process is otherwise appropriate and
consistent with the remedial action to be taken. (This
waiver of the statutory limits is generally used at NPL
sites but may be considered on a site-by-site basis at
non-NPL sites).
If a removal action must be conducted at a remedial site and
the remedial action has not yet been determined, the OSC
should attempt to select a removal action that will be
appropriate and consistent with the most probable remedial
action(s) for that site.
The removal process involves several phases including a
notification/discovery evaluation, remedy selection, response
action, and project closeout. Exhibit 4 provides an overview
of the removal process.
EPA learns of hazardous waste problems through formal
and informal mechanisms, either through notification or by
discovery. CERCLA requires "the person in charge," who
discovers a release of a hazardous substance above a certain
threshold, to report the release to the National Response
Center (NRC), a national clearinghouse that coordinates
responses to reports of hazardous substance releases. These
threshold levels, known as Reportable Quantities (RQs), vary
depending upon the specific substance detected. Through
1991, EPA has established RQs for more than 700 hazardous
substances, which are listed in 40 CFR Part 302. Releases
are reported to the NRC by PRPs, the general public, State
and local authorities, and Federal agencies. The NRC, which
is staffed by the USCG and located in Washington, D.C.,
alerts the appropriate EPA Regional or USCG OSC.
If the reported release appears to pose an imminent threat
to human health and the environment, the OSC begins a
removal site evaluation. The initial part of the evaluation is
based on available information such as written reports,
photographs, and interviews with witnesses. A site inspection
is performed if more detailed information is needed.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy V-9
-------
SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
Exhibit 4
The Removal Process
Notification
or
discovery
i
Conduct Removal Site
Evaluation
Continous
Enforcement
Effort
I
Assess Removal Site
Evaluation results
against regulatory criteria
Does
not
meet
criteria
End response or refer
to remedial or State
program (if appropriate)
I
Meets criteria
Prepare Action Memo
and obtain approval
I
Initiate response
Continuous
Public
Participation
Conduct cleanup
Action completed
Post-removal
site control
(if necessary)
i
Project closeout
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy V-10
-------
SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
During a removal site evaluation, the OSC considers the
type of contaminant, concentration and form, action levels,
and mitigation options. According to the NCP, the removal
site evaluation includes, but is not limited to:
Identification of the source and nature of the release or
threat of releases
Evaluation of the threat to public health
Evaluation of the magnitude of the threat
Evaluation of factors necessary to determine if a removal
action is appropriate
Determination if a non-Federal party is undertaking
proper response.
Depending on the characteristics of the release and urgency
of the situation, the evaluation may take only an hour or as
long as several weeks.
A PRP search is also initiated during the removal site
evaluation to identify and compel legally responsible parties to
take corrective action. Factors to consider when determining
the potential for PRP involvement in the response include the
urgency of the release, status of enforcement activities, and
financial capability of the responsible party.
Upon completion of the removal site evaluation, the
evaluation is reviewed to determine if action is necessary. If
action is necessary, it is documented that the time frame for
response is more appropriate for a removal action than for a
remedial response. After determining that a removal action is
necessary, the OSC assesses whether the responsible
party(s) or State can and will perform the necessary action.
If the responsible parties are not identified during the PRP
search, or they will not perform the necessary actions or
neither the PRP or the State can perform the necessary
actions, then a Trust-Fund financed removal action may be
undertaken.
Action Memorandum
An Action Memorandum is the primary decision
document that substantiates the need for a removal action,
identifies the proposed response, and explains the rationale
for the removal action. The Action Memorandum is the basis
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy V-l 1
-------
SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
Response Action
Site Closeout
Post Removal Site Control
for the actions described in an administrative order or a Trust
Fund-financed removal action. An Action Memorandum also
allocates funds for the response.
The on-site response action is initiated once the Action
Memorandum has been prepared and signed. For Fund-lead
actions, EPA hires contractors and completes the actions in
the Action Memorandum. For State or enforcement-lead
action, EPA oversees the remedy to ensure that it is in
compliance with any orders or agreements, Action
Memorandum, and is protective of public health and the
environment.
At the conclusion of the removal action, certain site
closeout procedures must be performed. The completion
date of the action must be determined to signify that the action
is complete, the threat is abated or mitigated, and that the
project was completed within 12 months or within the
timeframe approved in an exemption.
A final OSC report shall be completed. The OSC report
records the situation as it developed, actions taken, resources
committed, and problems encountered. The final step is
ensuring that post removal site control measures will be
maintained.
Post removal site control refers to those activities that
are necessary to sustain the integrity of a removal action
following its conclusion. These activities, such as relighting gas
flares, replacing filters, and collecting leachate, are necessary
for assuring the continuing effectiveness of a removal action
after completion of the on-site removal activities or after the
statutory limitations are reached. Generally, State, local
governments, or PRPs assume responsibility for these
activities.
Removal actions involve rapid response to eliminate,
minimize, or reduce the threat of a hazardous substance
release. The OSC is the key manager at a removal site and
directs response efforts and coordinates all other efforts at the
scene of a release or threatened release. The OSC directs
Fund-lead efforts and reviews work of other Agencies,
responsible parties, and contractors to assure compliance
with the NCP. The OSC also reviews all decision documents,
enforcement orders, and plans applicable to the response.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy V-12
-------
SECTION VI
SITE ASSESSMENT
OVERVIEW
THE SITE ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Site Discovery
Preliminary Assessment
Site Inspection
HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
SECTION VI
SITE ASSESSMENT
OVERVIEW
THE SITE ASSESSMENT
PROCESS
Hazardous Site
Evaluation Division
Regions and States
Contractors
Laboratories
When Congress enacted CERCLA, it recognized that the
cost of cleaning up all hazardous substance releases or
potential releases nationwide would exceed the resources
available in the Trust Fund. Therefore, Congress directed
EPA, in section 105 of CERCLA, to include in the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) criteria for determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases throughout the United States for the
purpose of taking response action. These criteria and
priorities are based upon relative risk or danger to human
health and the environment. To implement this mandate, EPA
developed a scoring system to identify priority sites for
cleanup using the Fund and a National Priorities List (NPL)
of sites to be cleaned up. The scoring system is called the
Hazard Ranking System (HRS). The HRS assesses the
relative risk posed by sites. The HRS enables EPA to identify
the priority sites and allocate Trust Fund monies accordingly.
Site assessment is the initial phase of the Superfund
response program. It is the process by which EPA and the
States identify, evaluate, and rank hazardous waste sites. The
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (HSED), at EPA
Headquarters, is responsible for directing Superfund's site
assessment program, while the EPA Regions and the States
actually implement the program.
The Regions work closely with the contractors and
laboratories that perform site investigations and analyses. The
States also perform various site assessment activities, often
with funding provided through Cooperative Agreements with
EPA. The Regions must ensure that Superfund program
objectives are met and that pertinent site information is
entered into the CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS).
CERCLIS is an inventory of all potential sites brought to
EPA's attention. CERCLIS contains information on both
potential and actual sites and the result of the site assessment
process. It serves as a historical data base for EPA to keep
track of EPA's work at each site. CERCLIS incorporates
vital program, enforcement, financial, management, and
technical data regarding sites.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy Vl-l
-------
SECTION VI - SITE ASSESSMENT
Site assessment activities help identify and evaluate the
most serious hazardous waste sites in the nation. These
activities include the following five steps:
1. Site Discovery when EPA first learns about
hazardous substance releases or potential releases
2. Preliminary Assessment a relatively low-cost
review of existing site information to determine the need
for further action
3. Site Inspection a more in-depth assessment of
on-site conditions and characteristics to determine if a site
presents enough of a threat to qualify for the NPL
4. Hazard Ranking System (HRS) a mathematical
model applied to assess the relative risk posed by likely
NPL sites
5. National Priorities List (NPL) a list of sites that are
eligible for Trust Fund-financed remedial action.
The site assessment process is illustrated in Exhibit 5.
At each stage of the site assessment process, sites are
subject to one of several outcomes:
Referral to the removal program If the site
presents an immediate danger to human health and the
environment, it would be referred to the removal
program. If a long-term threat remains at the site at the
conclusion of the removal action, the site assessment
process will continue.
Referral to the State or another environmental
programIf the information gathering process indicates
that the State or a more appropriate regulatory program
is available to address the problems at a site, the site may
be referred to the State or that program for further
consideration. CERCLA response authorities are to be
used as a "last resource."
A decision for no further action under CERCLA
If the assessments show no evidence of a hazardous
substance present or if the site will not receive a HRS
score that qualifies for NPL consideration, the
investigation of the site may be discontinued or referred
to the State.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy Vl-2
-------
SECTION VI - SITE ASSESSMENT
Exhibit 5
The Site Assessment Process
1
Site Evaluation
Accomplished (SEA)
Site Discovery
Preliminary Assessment (PA)
Site Inspection (SI) 1
i
MRS Package 1
i
r
Proposal to NPL 1
1
Public Comments and EPA
Response to Comments
I
Site Placed on NPL
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Vl-3
-------
SECTION VI - SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Discovery
Preliminary Assessment
Continuation in the site assessment programIf the
site presents evidence of a hazardous substance, it
continues through the assessment process potentially
leading to NPL placement and remedial action.
It is important to recognize that EPA does not perform these
site assessment activities alone. Many States have active site
assessment programs supported by the Regions.
This section discusses in greater detail the guiding
principles, objectives, and operating procedures for the five
general steps in the site assessment process.
EPA discovers hazardous substance releases that
potentially warrant Superfund response through several types
of channels. These channels include:
State and local programs
Other Federal programs (e.g., DoD or DOE)
Notification under CERCLA or RCRA reporting
requirements
Citizen complaints.
The majority of releases are discovered through State and
local programs.
Once a site has been discovered, the enforcement
process begins with a potentially responsible party (PRP)
search. During this search EPA seeks to identify all parties
who may be responsible for the release. As EPA identifies
PRPs, EPA notifies the PRPs and requests information in
order to support site assessment, identify other PRPs, and
support other possible future actions. PRP search activities
continue throughout the remedial process and generally begin
in earnest during the site inspection/NPL stage.
The next step EPA takes after learning of a potential site
or release is to obtain and review all available reports and
documentation about the site. This step is called a
preliminary assessment (PA). Preliminary assessments are
evaluations of existing site-specific data designed to determine
whether sites merit further action under CERCLA. EPA
collects background information not only from its own files
but also
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy VI4
-------
SECTION VI - SITE ASSESSMENT
from State and local records and U.S. Geological Survey
maps. During this assessment, EPA determines the size of the
site, the types and quantities of substances most likely to have
been released, the local hydrological and meteorological
conditions, the population at risk, and the potential
environmental impacts.
The objectives of the PA are to:
Eliminate from further consideration under CERCLA
those sites that do not pose threats to human health and
the environment
Determine the potential need for response action
Set priorities for site inspections
Gather data for the HRS score.
PAs are the only required, common step among all sites in
CERCLIS. All sites must have a PA within one year of entry
into CERCLIS.
PAs consist of collecting data and determining whether
there are hazardous substance that pose a threat to human
health and the environment. The purpose of PA data
collection is to gather as much readily available information as
possible about a particular site. The lead agency compiles
Federal, State, and local files; private well logs; and
geological, topographical, hydrological, and meteorological
data. Additionally, the lead agency interviews Federal, State,
and local personnel and examines other relevant records.
After completing the PA, EPA prepares a PA report, as
required by the NCP. The report includes the potentially
affected populations at a particular site, the site operating
history, sources of contamination, and, if appropriate,
hydrogeology and hydrology.
Sites can be eliminated from further CERCLA
consideration as a result of the PA, with a decision that the
site evaluation is accomplished (SEA). SEA decision,
following a PA, can be made if EPA concludes that there is
no threat to human health or the environment. Also, a site will
receive a SEA decision if there is no evidence of hazardous
substances being present, if the site has already been
investigated and no threat was
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Vl-5
-------
SECTION VI - SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Inspection
found, or if the risk from the site is not sufficiant for inclusion
on the NPL. The PA sites that have received SEA decisions
are typically sites with few possibly affected populations
within close proximity of the site and where there is a low
likelihood of release of hazardous substances into the
environment. The SEA decision can be made at any stage in
the site assessment process, either during or after the
preliminary assessment. If later information indicates the site
may present a risk or potential risk, the SEA decision may be
reviewed, and if necessary, further work or even listing on the
NPL may result. It should be noted that response actions
may, and often do, occur under State authority at sites that
have received SEA decisions, Also, a SEA decision does not
remove a site from CERCLIS.
EPA requires a site inspection (SI) if the preliminary
assessment indicates a suspected or potential release of
hazardous substances that may threaten human health or the
environment. Site inspections build upon and supplement the
information collected during the preliminary assessment. The
purposes of the site inspection are to:
Determine the potential need for a removal action
Determine whether further Superfund action is warranted
as a result of a significant threat to human health or the
environment
Collect additional data regarding contamination and risks
to further evaluate the release pursuant to the HRS and
the RI/FS, as appropriate.
During the SI, the lead agency collects and analyzes three
types of information necessary to develop an HRS score:(l)
desktop data; (2) non-sampling data; and (3) sampling data.
Desktop data are available from accessible sources, such as
topographical maps, well logs, and on-line data bases.
Bibliographic information too extensive to review during the
PA may also be used. Non-sampling data about a site and
its environment are gathered in the field on a reconnaissance
trip. Examples of non-sampling data collection include
gathering the source volumes and area measurements,
verifying possibly affected resources (e.g., ground water,
surface water, air), and verifying observable and measurable
physical characteristics about the site. Information is gathered
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Vl-6
-------
SECTION VI - SITE ASSESSMENT
HAZARDOUS RANKING SYSTEM
regarding the types of soils on site, streams or rivers on or
near the site, number of people in the area, weather
conditions, and who owns, or operates the site.
Sampling data are collected during a site visit. These
samples help to quantify what types of hazardous substances
are present at the site, how much of these substances has
been released, and what potential targets have been
contaminated. Samples of wastes, soil, surface water and
sediments, well water, and air are collected to determine what
hazardous substances are on the site. Samples are also taken
nearby to determine if and how far the substances may have
migrated away from the site.
The primary objective of this inspection of site
characteristics is to collect information to rank the site's
hazard potential, i.e., document an HRS score to the extent
required for a decision on whether the site qualifies for the
NPL. The procedures performed during an SI vary somewhat
because of differences in information needs and site
characteristics. Often the initial SI is conducted to collect the
sampling data necessary to document an HRS score.
However, if this SI does not produce enough data to prepare
an HRS score, a more extensive SI, called an expanded site
inspection (ESI), may be necessary to gather additional
sampling data. Both the SI and the ESI support EPA's
decision concerning a response action that may be required
at a site. A site can receive a SEA decision at any point in the
process if it becomes apparent the site will not go onto the
NPL.
CERCLA mandated that a screening mechanism be
established to evaluate a site's relative risk and determine its
eligibility for the NPL. EPA, in response, developed an
approach to systematically score sites that have been
discovered. This model is known as the Hazard Ranking
System (HRS). It enables EPA to identify the possible or
actual risks at each site, assign numerical scores to those
risks, and compare the relative severity of risks among sites
after a site inspection is performed. A site must have a total
score of 28.50 or above to be proposed for the NPL. The
HRS is a screening tool, it is not a risk assessment.
CERCLA mandates that the screening model take into
account, to the maximum extent possible:
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Vl-7
-------
SECTION VI - SITE ASSESSMENT
Surface Water
Migration
Air
Migration
Pathways of
Exposure
Ground water
Migration
Soil
Exposure
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
The population at risk
The potential for drinking water contamination
The potential for direct human exposure
The potential for ecosystem impacts
Damages that may affect the human food chain
Health risks due to contamination of surface water or
ground water
Actual or potential contamination of ambient air.
The HRS examines four pathways of exposure: (1)
groundwater migration; (2) surface water migration; (3) soil
exposure; and (4) air migration.
The score is based on a calculation of factors within each
pathway. The factor categories are: likelihood of release,
waste characteristics, and targets (i.e., potentially affected
populations, etc.). The information for the HRS is from the
PA, SI, and ESI, which are the steps EPA uses to develop
and refine the site information, As the site assessment process
proceeds and more data are collected, the accuracy of the
data increase. The information collected and EPA's decision
at each stage of the process determines the fate of a site, i.e.,
whether or not a site will continue to be considered for
inclusion on the NPL. After the completion of the SI, the
Region conducts an evaluation to decide whether to prepare
an HRS package for a site and to propose a site for the NPL.
The HRS package contains the documentation that supports
the data for the score, e.g., worksheets, historical data, maps,
PA and SI reports.
Once the HRS package is completed and has been
reviewed in the Region, it is submitted to EPA Headquarters
for a quality assurance (QA) review. Following the QA
review, eligible sites are submitted by the Region to
Headquarters for proposal to the NPL.
The HRS score does not necessarily provide an indication
of the feasibility, desirability, or nature of the remedial action
that may be undertaken; the score is one of many factors used
to prioritize sites for remedial action.
Hazardous waste sites must be included on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in order to be eligible for Trust Fund-
financed remedial action. EPA determines which sites to
include on the NPL by evaluating the relative risks of sites in
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Vl-8
-------
SECTION VI - SITE ASSESSMENT
CERCLIS. In assessing relative risks, EPA implements
section 300.425 of the NCP which specifies three ways sites
may become eligible for the NPL:
The site has an HRS score of at least 28.50
Each State is given one opportunity to designate one site,
which it considers its highest priority, for the NPL
The site meets all three of the following criteria: (1) the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has
issued a health advisory recommending that people be
disassociated from the hazardous substances to avoid
exposure; (2) EPA determines that the site represents a
significant threat to human health or the environment; and
(3) EPA determines that remedial action is more cost-
effective than removal action.
Development of the NPL requires close cooperation among
EPA Headquarters, the Regions, and the State agencies
involved. Since the NPL is a rule, adding a site to the NPL
must be accomplished through a rule-making process. This
process can be divided into three stages: the rule proposal
stage, the public comment period, and the final rulemaking
phase.
The rule proposal stage begins when the Regions submit
HRS packages for a Headquarters quality assurance review.
Those sites that still have an HRS score of 28.50 or above
after the QA process qualify for NPL listing. The resulting
proposed list is subject to internal review and approval by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). After OMB
approval, EPA publishes the proposed rule, including the list
of sites, in the Federal Register.
Next, the published proposed rule is subject to a 60-day
public comment period. This comment period allows the
public to review information about the proposed sites and to
comment in writing on specific sites. To ensure citizen
involvement, EPA establishes a public docket for each site
that includes the HRS package and the site summary. These
dockets are located in EPA Headquarters and in the
respective Regional Office. In addition to comments from the
general public, EPA receives comments from government
agencies, industries, environmental groups, and trade
associations.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Vl-9
-------
SECTION VI - SITE ASSESSMENT
EPA must respond in writing to all comments received during
the public comment period, and these responses must be
made available to the public. The responses appear in a
support document issued at the time a final decision on sites
appears in the Federal Register.
It is possible to have a site's score drop as a result of
additional information received. If the score drops below
28.50, the site would not be placed on the NPL. Many of
these sites become the responsibility of the States. All sites,
however, remain listed in CERCLIS.
Once all of the public comments on a site have been
addressed, EPA compiles a final rule along with a support
document that includes all of the comments received and
EPA's responses. The final rule is then reviewed by OMB,
signed by EPA's Assistant Administrator of the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and published in the
Federal Register. Through this process, sites become officially
part of the NPL and, as a result, qualify for CERCLA
remedial action funds.
CERCLA requires that the NPL be updated at least once
a year. EPA schedules two NPL proposals a year and two
NPL rules a year.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Vl-10
-------
SECTION VII
REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
OVERVIEW
REMEDIAL PROCESS
S Who Takes the Lead?
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
S Project Scoping
S Site Characterization
S Treatability Studies
FEASIBILITY STUDY
S Development and Screening of Alternatives
S Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
SELECTION OF REMEDY
S Proposed Plan
S Record of Decision
REMEDIAL DESIGN
REMEDIAL ACTION
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
SECTION VII
REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
OVERVIEW
Once EPA places a site on the National Priorities List
(NPL), it becomes eligible for Trust Fund-financed long-term
remedial activity. For these priority hazardous substance sites,
cleanup is a long, complex process that may take millions of
dollars and many years to complete. Remedial actions at NPL
sites are designed to provide permanent solutions to mitigate
risk to human health and the environment from the release of
hazardous substances to the maximum extent practicable.
Remedial sites typically have multi-media contamination (soils,
surface water, ground water) by many different types of
chemicals. The sites, which may encompass acres, or even
miles, often must be broken up into several portions called
"operable units" in order to address all of the problems at the
site.
Section 121 of CERCLA requires, to the extent
practicable, that Superfund remedial actions comply with the
methods, procedures, and criteria outlined in the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP). CERCLA also requires that remedial actions:
Protect human health and the environment
Comply with Federal and State applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) unless exempted by
a waiver
Utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable
Be cost-effective
Include State and community participation.
Also, EPA promotes the implementation of innovative
technologies in responding to hazardous substance releases
and waste sites.
THE REMEDIAL PROCESS
The remedial process requires extensive data gathering
and analysis to characterize scope of the problem and the
potential threats to human health and the environment.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Vll-l
-------
SECTION VH - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
Who Takes the Lead? The Superfund program allows for EPA to conduct
remedial activity, or EPA to enter into site-specific
agreements to allow other agencies and/or groups or parties
to conduct remedial activity. The agency or group that plans,
carries out, and/or finances the cleanup is known as the lead
agency/group. Agencies or groups that assist the lead
agency by participating in the cleanup are known as support
agencies/groups.
There are three possible leads for a remedial action,
Fund-lead, State-lead, or Enforcement-lead. In a Fund-lead,
EPA is the lead agency and assigns responsibility for
managing and conducting the work to either the Alternative
Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) contractors, U.S.
Corps of Engineers (USAGE), or the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (BuRec). A State, local agency, or Indian Tribe
is the lead in a State-lead response. In an Enforcement-lead,
responsible parties following court orders or settlement
agreements are the lead.
For Trust Fund-financed remedial actions, CERCLA
states that the State must first contribute 10 percent of the
cleanup costs for sites that were privately owned or operated
and 50 percent or more of costs for sites that were operated
by the State. Once EPA, having consulted with the State,
certifies that the remedy is working properly and has met the
remedy's objectives, the State finances and carries out
operation and maintenance activities. However, EPA is
always ultimately responsible for the success of a response
taken under CERCLA authorities, regardless of who has the
lead role in the Superfund remedial activity.
The remedial process includes steps to develop, design,
and conduct a remedial action. Remedial actions are long
term actions that stop or substantially reduce a release or
threatened release, and are taken only at sites on the NPL.
The remedial process is made up of the following six phases:
Remedial Investigation
Feasibility Study
Selection of Remedy
Remedial Design
Remedial Action
Operation and Maintenance.
Each of these six phases is shown in Exhibit 6 and discussed
in greater detail below.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy VII-2
-------
SECTION \H - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
Exhibit 6
The Remedial Process
Remedial Investigation (Rl)
An assessment of the nature and extent of contamination
and the associated health and environmental risks
Feasibility Study (FS)
Development and analysis of the range of cleanup alternatives for the
site, according to the nine evaluation criteria; usually undertaken
concurrently with the Rl
Selection of Remedy
Selection of the remedial alternative for the site. This step includes:
Proposed Plan
Identifies a preferred remedial alternative for a Superfund
site and explains why it is the preferred alternative, and allows
for public comment
Record of Decision (ROD)
The official report documenting the background information on the site
and describing the chosen remedy and why it was selected
Remedial Design (RD)
Preparation of technical plans and specifications
for implementing the chosen remedial alternative
I
Remedial Action (RA)
Construction or other work necessary to
implement the remedial alternative
f
Operation & Maintenance (O&M)
Activities conducted at a site after a response action occurs
to ensure that the cleanup methods are working properly and
to ensure site remedy continues to be effective
vn-3
-------
SECTION VH - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
Project Scoping
Once a site is placed on the NPL, the lead agency must
perform or oversee a remedial investigation (RI) to further
assess the site's problems. Similar to the initial site inspection
prior to listing on the NPL, this involves an examination of site
characteristics in order to better define the problem.
The remedial investigation, however, is much more
detailed and comprehensive than the initial site inspection. The
RI is designed to define the nature and extent of the problem
and to provide information needed to develop and evaluate
cleanup alternatives. It determines the existence and nature of
any actual threat that may be posed to human health or the
environment, and defines the extent of the threat posed to
human health or the environment by any contamination that is
found at a site.
The remedial investigation can be broken out into three
main phases:
Project Scoping
Site Characterization
Treatability Studies.
Scoping is the initial planning phase of the RI and is
continued and refined as new information about the site
becomes available. During scoping, the lead and support
agencies first identify the type and optimal sequence of site
activities. Scoping involves the following seven steps:
1. Conduct site kickoff meetings to begin site
management planning, review and assign RI activities, and
establish lines of communication among key personnel.
2. Evaluate existing datato characterize the site to the
extent necessary to support subsequent decisions.
Existing data may include site data gathered during the
NPL listing process and the search for PRPs, information
from present or past site owners, historical and aerial
photographs, records of disposal practices and operating
procedures, regional geology and hydrology, land use
information, and the location of sensitive environmental
areas, supply wells, and surface water use on or near the
site.
VII-4
-------
SECTION \H - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
3. Conduct site visit to identify the site's physical
characteristics (e.g., waste sources, areas of
contamination, potential exposure pathways, and potential
receptors at or near the site) through field notes and
photographs, and note any changes or discrepancies from
existing data.
4. D evelop conceptual site modelto evaluate potential
risks to human health and the environment and to assist in
identifying and setting priorities for the activities to be
conducted at the site. The site model can be either a
pictorial or computer-based graphic representation of site
dynamics. It illustrates potential sources of contamination,
types of contaminants and affected media, release
mechanisms and potential contaminant pathways, and
actual and potential human and environmental receptors.
5. Identify preliminary remediation goals and general
response actions to establish specific goals for
protecting human health and the environment. Once a
conceptual understanding of the site is obtained,
preliminary remediation goals are identified for each
chemical and medium to be addressed. Then general
response actions for each chemical and medium are
developed. These general response actions may later be
combined or refined into specific remedial action
alternatives. The preliminary remediation goals are
modified as more information is developed concerning the
site and the general response actions.
6. Initiate identification of potential applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)
to assist in identifying preliminary remediation goals and
alternatives and providing better planning of field
activities. ARARs are identified and refined as a better
understanding is gained of site conditions, site
contaminants, and remedial action alternatives.
7. Identify initial data needs and data quality
objectives to determine the type and quality of the
data needed for the intended use of the data (e.g., health
and safety planning, site characterization, remedial
alternatives evaluation, or risk assessment). Once the data
needs are identified, the strategies for sampling and
analysis are
vn-5
-------
SECTION VH - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
/'Work Plan
Sampling & Analysis Plan
Health & Safety Plan
Community Relations Plan
Site Characterization
developed and the data quality objectives (DQOs) are
established. The DQOs specify the quality of data
required during the different phases of the RI and
Feasibility Study (FS).
The seven steps of the scoping phase result in the
development of the Work Plan. The Work Plan documents
the decisions and evaluations made during scoping and
describes the tasks required to conduct the RI and FS.
The work plan includes several other related project plans
that are derived directly from information gathered during
scoping. These include the Sampling and Analysis Plan, the
Health and Safety Plan, and the Community Relations Plan.
The Sampling and Analysis Plan is prepared so that sample
collection activities are conducted in accordance with
technically acceptable protocols and that the data collected in
the field meet the DQOs established during scoping. The
Health and Safety Plan identifies potentially hazardous
operations and exposures and prescribes appropriate
protective measures for on-site workers, the surrounding
community, and the environment. The Community Relations
Plan documents the issues of community concern at a site
and describes the objectives of the community relations
activities and how these objectives will be met.
The site characterization phase of the RI builds on
activities initiated during the scoping phase and includes
implementation of the project plans mentioned above. Field
data are collected and analyzed to determine the problems
posed by the site and to support the identification of potential
remedial actions. The following six activities are undertaken
during the site characterization phase:
1. Conduct field investigations to define a site's
physical characteristics and its sources, nature, and extent
of the threat posed by the contamination.
2. Perform sample analysis to analyze the samples
gathered during the field investigation. The data are then
evaluated and must be carefully managed to allow them
to be used to support remedy selection and any legal or
cost recovery actions.
vn-e
-------
SECTION \H - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
Treatability Studies
3. Define nature and extent of threat posed by
contamination to determine the actual and potential
magnitude of releases from the sources and the mobility
and persistence of source contaminants. The various
contaminant pathways (e.g., air, ground water, etc.) are
identified and studied.
4. Conduct baseline risk assessment for various
exposure routes to identify and characterize the
current and potential risks that the site poses to human
health and the environment.
5. Further identify ARARs to use the new information
about the site to investigate and identify more specific
ARARs. Identification of ARARs is initiated during the
scoping phase and is continued throughout the site
characterization phase.
6. Evaluate additional data needs the data collected
and compiled are evaluated to determine if: a) the DQOs
have been met; b) the risks posedby the site have been
adequately defined; c) the need (or lack of need) for
remedial action is documented; and d) the data necessary
for the development and evaluation of remedial action
alternatives have been obtained.
Treatability studies provide data to support remedy
selection and implementation. Treatability studies help to
support CERCLA's requirement that EPA select remedies
that "utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable." Treatability studies should be
performed as soon as it becomes apparent that the available
informationis insufficient to support the selection of a potential
treatment technology.
During the scoping process, a literature survey is often
conducted to gather information on various technologies that
might remediate the unacceptable risks. The literature survey
is designed to identify each technology's applicability,
performance, implementability, relative costs, and operation
and maintenance requirements. If the considered technologies
have not been sufficiently demonstrated or cannot be
adequately evaluated on the basis of available information,
treatability studies are then performed.
vn-7
-------
SECTION VH - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Development and Screening of
Alternatives
For a technology that has performance and cost data,
bench-scale tests are usually sufficient to evaluate
performance on new waste types. Pilot-scale tests may be
necessary if information needed to operate the technology at
full scale is limited, if there is a need to investigate secondary
effects of the process, or if the waste being tested is complex
or unique.
Following the treatability tests, an evaluation report is
prepared that analyzes and interprets the test results
considering the technology's effectiveness, implementability,
environmental impacts, and cost. This report is incorporated
into the overall RI report and is available for public review.
EPA develops alternatives for remedial action and
carefully compares the advantages and disadvantages of each
alternative. This analysis of alternatives is called a feasibility
study (FS). In an FS, options for cleaning up the site are
considered, described, and evaluated against nine criteria.
The FS is comprised of two main phases:
Development and screening of alternatives
Detailed analysis of the alternatives.
It is important to note that, the FS is performed concurrently
with the RI. This is because the data collected in the RI
influences the development of remedial action alternatives in
the FS, which in turn affects the data needs and scope of
treatability studies and subsequent field studies.
In the first phase of the FS, the general response actions,
which meet the preliminary remediation goals developed
during the RI scoping, are further developed and refined into
specific remedial action alternatives. The alternatives may
range from treatment of the principal threat to engineering
controls supplemented by institutional controls for low-level
contaminants and wastes for which treatment is impracticable.
This phase of the FS includes the following seven
components:
1. Refine remediation goals to refine the preliminary
remediation goals for protecting human health and the
environment. The preliminary remediation goals, identified
during project scoping, specify the contaminants and
media of concern, the exposure routes and receptors, and
the remediation levels for each chemical.
vn-8
-------
SECTION \H - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
2. Develop general response actions to refine and
relate the response actions to basic methods of
protection, such as treatment or containment. The general
response actions were originally defined during project
scoping for each medium of concern, and they now are
refined. The volume or area to which general response
action might be applied and the potential actions identified
may be combined to form alternatives.
3. Identify and screen appropriate technologies to
list and evaluate potentially applicable technologies and
technological process options. These options include the
specific alternative processes within each technology, i.e.,
ion exchange or use of a soil-clay cap. The list is then
reduced by evaluating the process operations with
respect to technical implementability. Existing information
on technologies and site characterization data are used to
screen out options that cannot be effectively implemented
at the site.
4. Select representative process options to simplify
the development and evaluation of remedial action
alternatives. Based on the identification and screening of
technologies, one representative option is selected, if
possible, for each technology type remaining after the
screening. During remedial design, other process options
may be selected if they are found to be more
advantageous.
5. Reevaluate data needs to add any data that may be
needed to assess potential process limitations or to
establish remedial design criteria. Treatability studies are
often needed when treatment is identified as a viable
alternative. These studies provide data on technologies
and their effectiveness on a specific waste found at a site.
6. Assemble technologies into alternatives to
combine the general response actions into specific
remedial action alternatives to meet all of the remediation.
goals. For example, an alternative may call for incinerating
the most highly contaminated soil from a portion of the
site, and for capping other less contaminated areas.
Consideration is given to how general response actions
can be integrated in the most efficient ways.
vn-9
-------
SECTION VH - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
7. Screen alternatives, if required to focus the
number of remedial action alternatives so that only the
most viable alternatives will undergo a detailed analysis.
If a large number of viable alternatives remains after the
assembly of alternatives, this additional screening process
is used. Three screening categories are used to reduce the
number of alternatives: a) short- and long-term
effectiveness and reductions achieved in toxicity, mobility,
or volume; b) implementability including technical and
administrative feasibility; and c) grossly excessive in cost.
At the completion of this phase, the problems of the site have
been investigated. In addition the remediation goals are
defined and the development and screening of remedial action
alternatives has been completed. At this point, the remaining
remedial action alternatives along with a no action alternative
undergo a detailed analysis to identify the most effective
option that best satisfies the statutory mandates.
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Once the cleanup alternatives have been assembled,
screened, and defined, EPA evaluates them according to nine
criteria. These evaluation criteria are the standards by which
all the alternatives are assessed and are the basis of the
remedy selection process. They can be separated into three
levels: threshold, balancing, and modifying. The first two
criteria are known as threshold criteria because they are the
minimum requirements that each alternative must meet in
order to be eligible for selection as a remedy:
1. Overall protection of human health and the
environment Addresses whether a remedy provides
adequate protection of human health and the environment
from unacceptable risks posed by hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants present at the site by
eliminating, reducing, or controlling exposures through
treatment, engineering, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) Addresses
whether the alternative attains all ARARs under Federal
environmental laws or State environment or facility-siting
laws or provides the grounds for invoking one of the six
ARAR waivers stated in the NCP.
vn-io
-------
SECTION \H - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
Alternative
Goal
After criteria 1 and 2 are applied, EPA considers evaluation
criteria 3 through 7. These next five criteria are known as the
balancing criteria. These criteria are factors with which
tradeoffs between alternatives are assessed so that the best
option will be chosen, given site-specific data and conditions:
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence Refers
to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of
human health and the environment over time, once
remedial action goals have been met. Permanence for this
criterion is viewed along a continuum, and an alternative
can be described as offering a greater or lesser degree of
permanence.
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
Assesses the relative performance of recycling or
treatment technologies on the toxicity, mobility or volume
of contaminants.
5. Short-term effectiveness Addresses the adverse
impacts on human health and the environment that may be
posed in the time it takes to implement the remedy and
achieve the remediation goals.
6. Implementability Looks at the technical and
administrative feasibility of the remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed to implement
each component of the option in question.
7. Cost Includes estimated capital and operation and
maintenance costs, and net present value of capital and
operation and maintenance costs
The final two criteria are called modifying criteria because
new information or comments from the State or the
community may modify the preferred remedial action
alternative or cause another alternative to be considered.
These last criteria are:
8. State acceptance Addresses the State's comments
and concerns for each potential remedy. Indicates
whether the State concurs with the preferred or the
selected remedy. This assessment may not be completed
until comments on
vn-n
-------
SECTION VH - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
SELECTION OF REMEDY
Proposed Plan
the RI/FS are received, but it may be discussed to the
extent possible in the Proposed Plan.
9. Community acceptance Summarizes the public's
general response to the alternatives described in the
Proposed Plan or the FS. This assessment includes
determining which of the alternatives interested persons in
the community support, have reservations about, or
oppose. This assessment may not be completed until
comments on the Proposed Plan are received.
The remedy selection process begins when EPA or the
lead agency identifies a preferred remedial action alternative
from among those evaluated in detail in the FS by the lead
agency, in consultation with the support agency. The
preferred action is presented to the public in a Proposed Plan,
issued for comment with the RI/FS. Upon receipt of public
comments on the Proposed Plan, the lead agency consults
with the support agency to determine if the preferred action
remains the most appropriate remedial action for the site. The
final remedy is selected and documented in a Record of
Decision (ROD). Although PRPs may conduct the RI/FS
(except the risk assessment component), they may not select
the remedy or write the ROD. Only EPA, or in limited cases
the State, may do these things. The Proposed Plan and the
ROD are the two main components of the remedy selection
process.
Section 117(a) of CERCLA requires preparation of a
Proposed Plan as part of the site remediation process. The
Proposed Plan is a public participation document that
addresses threat to human health and the environment and:
Highlights key aspects of the RI/FS
Provides a brief analysis of remedial action alternatives
under consideration
Explains the rationale for the preferred alternative
Solicits public review and comment on all alternatives
presented.
To solicit public comments, a notice and brief analysis of the
Proposed Plan are published in a major local newspaper of
general circulation. In addition, the Proposed Plan is made
available at an information repository near the site.
vn-12
-------
SECTION \H - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
Record of Decision
The Proposed Plan can be written in a fact sheet format
or an expanded format. Since it is a public participation
document, the Proposed Plan outlines the procedures in order
to inform and educate the public. It starts with a general
introduction, site background, scope of the response action
and summary of site risks. Each of the remedial action
alternatives evaluated in the detailed analysis of the FS is
summarized, including how each contaminated medium will be
remedied, the estimated construction and operation and
maintenance costs, and the implementation time of each
alternative. The preferred alternative is identified, although it
is pointed out that the selection of this alternative is
preliminary and could change in response to public comments
or other new information. The nine evaluation criteria are
introduced and the preferred alternative is compared to the
other alternatives with respect to the criteria. The Proposed
Plan concludes with a summary of the findings and a section
that explains how the public can become involved.
The public is given the opportunity for a public meeting to
discuss issues related to the site and to submit oral and written
comments to EPA during the 30-day public comment period.
This comment period may be extended to 60-days upon
timely request. Following receipt of public comments and any
final comments from the support agency, the remedial action
is selected and the rationale is documented in the ROD.
The Record of Decision is the final remedial action plan
for the site. The purpose of the ROD is to document the
remedy selected, provide a rationale for the selected remedy,
and establish performance standards or goals for the site or
the operable unit under consideration. The ROD provides a
plan for site design and remediation, and documents the
extent of human health or environmental risks posed by the
site or operable unit. It also serves as legal certification that
the remedy was selected in accordance with the requirements
of CERCLA and the NCP. The ROD is one of the most
important documents in the remedy selection process,
because it documents all activities prior to selection of a
remedy and provides a conceptual plan for activities
subsequent to the ROD. The ROD contains the following
three sections:
Declaration The declaration is the formal statement
that makes the ROD legal and binding. It is signed by the
EPA Regional Administrator or Assistant Administrator
of OSWER that identifies the selected remedy and
indicates
vn-is
-------
SECTION VH - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
that the selection was carried out in accordance with the
statutory and regulatory requirements of the Superfund
program.
Decision Summary The decision summary provides
an overview of the problems and risks posed by the
conditions at the site, the remedial action alternatives, and
the analysis of those alternatives. The decision summary
also explains the rationale for the selection and how the
selected remedy satisfies statutory requirements and
performance goals.
Responsiveness Summary The responsiveness
summary addresses comments received from the public.
This document provides the lead agency with information
about community preferences regarding both the remedial
alternatives and general comments about the site. It also
demonstrates to members of the public how their
comments were taken into account as an integral part of
the decision making process.
After completion of the ROD, a notice should be
published that the ROD is final and available to the public in
the Administrative Record before commencing the remedial
action. The ROD must document any significant changes from
the proposed plan and responses to all significant comments
that were received during the public comment period. The
ROD is signed after closure of the public comment period and
once all significant comments or issues are addressed.
If public comments result in changes to the remedy, the
changes should be clearly documented in the section of the
ROD describing significant changes from the Proposed Plan.
If a fundamental change to the remedy is made between the
Proposed Plan and the ROD (such as changing a treatment
remedy to a containment remedy), then an amended
Proposed Plan should be issued and a new public comment
period must be opened.
After the ROD is signed, new information may come to
light that may alter the effectiveness, extent, or implementation
of the remedial action. Three types of changes may occur:
vn-i4
-------
SECTION \H - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
Non-significant or minor
Significant
Fundamental.
Non-significant changes are characterized as minor
changes that do not overly affect the scope or the objective
of the selected remedy. They should be noted in the post-
decision document file, or maybe documented in an optional
Remedial Design Fact Sheet.
A significant change does not modify the overall remedy
but could alter a component of the remedy. If a significant
change to a component of the remedy is needed, then an
Explanation of Significant Differences (BSD) must be
developed, approved, and released to the public.
At the other end of the spectrum, a reconsideration of the
hazardous waste management approach subsequent to the
ROD is considered a fundamental change to the remedy and
requires a ROD Amendment. When such fundamental
changes are made to a remedy, a repetition of the ROD
process, including issuance of a revised Proposed Plan and a
new public comment period, is necessary.
A ROD amendment looks very similar to an initial ROD
and should include a Responsiveness Summary; however, the
introductory sections (such as the site history, community
relations, and site risks) do not need to be readdressed.
Rather, the focus of the discussion should be on the rationale
for the ROD Amendment, evaluating the alternatives in terms
of the nine criteria, and provided assurances that the new
proposed remedy satisfies the statutory requirements.
The ROD does more than just document the remedy
selected at one site. It provides an accounting of what
remedies have been selected given a set of conditions. EPA
has developed a detailed data base of RODs, called the
Records of Decision System. (RODS). The RODS database
serves as a central information base to promote national
consistency between RODs. Sites with similar conditions may
use related RODs to help select remedies.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy VH-15
-------
SECTION VH - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
REMEDIAL DESIGN
Once the course of action has been selected and
approved, it is time to design the remedial action and carry it
out. The last phases of the remedial process are remedial
design (RD), remedial action (RA), and operation and
maintenance (O&M). In these phases, EPA oversees design
of the remedy, construction and implementation of the
remedy, determination that the remedy is complete, and that
the State continues operation and maintenance, if required.
Remedial design is an engineering phase in which
technical drawings and specifications are developed for the
selected remedy as documented in the ROD. In a Fund-lead,
EPA assigns RD and RA work to either the Alternative
Remedial Contract Strategy (ARCS) contractors, the U.S.
Corps of Engineers (USAGE), or the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (BuRec), depending on the type of remedy and
the estimated cost of the project. In a State-lead, State, local
agencies, or Indian Tribes may manage the design and
construction of those Superfund actions for which they have
lead responsibility. Responsible parties may conduct RD/RA
activities following court orders or settlement agreements. The
RD phase includes the following five general components:
1. Remedial design project plan This entails assigning
lead agency and support agency roles and responsibilities,
selecting a remedial design firm, and preparing the
Statement of Work (SOW). When EPA is leading a
response action, a Superfund State Contract (SSC), that
assures the transfer of cost-sharing funds, is entered into
between a State or Indian Tribe and EPA. It can also be
used to specify required State involvement during a
political subdivision-lead response. Also, EPA may sign
an IAG with the USAGE or BuRec for contractor
procurement and oversight activities. In addition to a SSC
and an IAG, EPA may also enter into a settlement
agreement or use court orders to compel a responsible
party to complete the cleanup. If the State has lead
responsibility, a Cooperative Agreement would be signed
specifying EPA and State responsibilities.
Following the determination of roles and responsibilities,
an Architect Engineer (A/E) firm is selected to develop
the remedial design along with other related design plans.
A SOW also is developed. The SOW requires the A/E
firm to design the remedy selected in the ROD and to
develop other plans such as an O&M plan, quality
assurance
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy VH-16
-------
SECTION \H - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
project plan (QAPP), and a health and safety plan. The
SOW may also include a schedule and budget for the
A/E firm to follow.
2. Develop, review, and approve design This ensures
that the design is progressing in a manner consistent with
the ROD and existing environmental and construction
standards. EPA and the State review all of the design
products. The primary responsibility for design review
and approval depends on who has the primary lead for
the RD (e.g.., Federal, State, or PRP).
3. Obtain permits, approvals, and site access This
confirms that all the necessary documentation is included
in the RD package. As in the review component, the lead
design party is responsible for obtaining all of the
necessary permits and approvals for off-site actions.
On-site CERCLA activities do not require a permit. In
the case of site access, the State has responsibility for
obtaining site access agreements for Federal- and
State-lead design, while the responsible party is
responsible for obtaining access for Enforcement-lead
design. All parties must be informed when the necessary
permits, approvals, and site access agreements such as
non-environmental construction permits, right-of-way
approvals, and environmental permits from facilities
receiving materials taken off-site have been obtained.
4. Conduct community relations activities This keeps
the community informed of all ongoing activities at the
site. Specifically, the community relations plan should be
revised to reflect citizen concerns and involvement at this
stage of the process and a public notice and updated fact
sheet should be prepared at the completion of the
engineering design. Public meetings may be held to inform
the public of the technical status, if necessary. The RPM,
working with the Community Relations Coordinator, is
responsible for site community relations activities.
5. Develop cost estimates for construction This
develops a cost estimate for constructing and
implementing the remedial design. The project cost
estimates should be as accurate and as complete as
possible. However, the estimates become more refined as
the design progresses from the ROD to the preliminary
design to the final design.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy VH-17
-------
SECTION VH - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
REMEDIAL ACTION
Following completion and final approval of the RD package,
the actual implementation of the remedial action begins.
The remedial action process consists of executing a
cost-share agreement between EPA and the State (unless
Enforcement-lead), procuring a cleanup contractor, ensuring
that the contractor implements the remedies according to the
RD, and preparing the site for long-term monitoring and
maintenance. Specifically, the RA process can be divided into
the following three steps:
1. Remedial action project planning This entails
updating the SSC, CA, or IAG, procuring a contractor to
implement the design, and preparing the SOW.
Specifically, agreements between the State or other
agencies may need to reflect changes in the remedy based
on the design or a change between EPA, State, or
Enforcement-lead. A contractor to construct and
implement the design must be procured, and finally a
SOW requiring the contractor to follow the design and
schedule from the remedial design phase is necessary.
2. Implement, monitor, and oversee action This
ensures that the remedy is constructed and compliance
with legal, contractual, environmental, and health and
safety requirements is verified. The contractor constructs
the remedy in accordance with the remedial design plans.
During the construction process, the lead and support
agencies conduct periodic inspections and reviews to
ensure the project is on time and within budget.
3. Complete pre-final inspection, final inspection,
closeout and transition to O&M This serves to
ensure that the overall project is complete and consistent
with all legal or contractual agreements. The purpose of
the pre-fmal inspection is to determine whether the
remedy has been constructed in accordance with physical
plans and specifications. Some minor fine-tuning of the
remedy maybe necessary at this point. After a pre-final
inspection and approval of a preliminary operable unit
Closeout Report, the operable unit maybe categorized in
CERCLIS as "construction complete." An interim
operable unit Closeout Report for long-term remedial
actions, documents that a remedy is operational and
functional. After the final operable unit Closeout Report
is submitted, O&M activities should commence for that
operable unit.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy vn-18
-------
SECTION \H - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
The site Closeout Report, produced after the final
inspection, documents how an implementable remedy(ies)
satisfies site completion requirements. After the site
Closeout Report is submitted, all O&M activities should
have been commenced. O&M activities are those
measures required to maintain the effectiveness of
response actions. The process for deleting a site from the
NPL is appropriate when EPA and the State agree that
all necessary response measures have been taken (or
none are necessary).
A remedy becomes "operational and functional" either one
year after construction is complete, or when EPA and the
State determined jointly that the remedy is functioning
properly and is performing as designed. The date certified in
the final inspection /certification report that the project is
operational and functional and in accordance with the contract
documents, is the date when O&M, the last phase of the
remedial process, commences.
OPERATION & The State or PRP assumes responsibility for the operation
MAINTENANCE and maintenance, which may include such activities as
ground water and air monitoring, inspection and maintenance
of the treatment equipment remaining on site, and maintenance
of any security measures or institutional controls. Although the
State or PRP is responsible for implementing O&M, EPA
carefully monitors the site through 5-year reviews to ensure
that the remedy at each site remains protective of human
health and the environment.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy VH-19
-------
SECTION VIII
STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT
OVERVIEW
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
S CERCLA
S Definitions of Response roles
S State Assurances
S NCP and Subpart O
MECHANISMS FOR PROMOTING INVOLVMENT
STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
SECTION VII
STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL
INVOLVEMENT
OVERVIEW
Since the enactment of CERCLA, States have actively
participated in the Superfund program, and the extent of their
involvement has grown over time. CERCLA authorizes and
encourages EPA to allow States and political subdivisions,
such as county governments, which have the necessary
technical and management expertise, to act as lead agency for
many of the cleanup efforts. CERCLA also requires EPA to
coordinate with States when EPA leads the site response.
State involvement in Superfund was strengthened and
broadened when CERCLA was amended by SARA. SARA
encourages State involvement by specifying the points at
which State participation is required. SARA also outlines
minimum requirements for involving States in virtually every
phase of Superfund decision-making. As a result, States
participate in enforcement, removal actions, site assessment,
and remedial activities, including remedial investigations (RIs),
feasibility studies (FSs), remedial designs (RDs), and remedial
actions (RAs). Also, States are responsible for providing
certain assurances, including sharing in the cost of designated
cleanup activities as a pre-condition to EPA spending Trust
Fund monies for remedial actions; identifying State ARARs;
and funding and conducting O&M at a site.
When States acts as the lead agency, EPA participates as
a support agency but is ultimately responsible for the remedy
selection and the efficiency of the cleanup. SARA extends this
EPA/State interaction to Indian Tribes, for most purposes.
EPA must treat eligible Indian Tribal governments essentially
the same as States. These Indian Tribes may either lead a
response or provide support when EPA leads the response
activities. To be eligible for this role, an Indian Tribe must:
Be Federally recognized
Have a Tribal governing body that promotes health,
safety, and welfare of the affected population and
protects the environment within a defined geographical
area
Have jurisdiction over a site in CERCLIS, or have
jurisdiction over a site that is proposed or listed on the
National Priorities List (NPL), at which a Trust Fund-
financed response is contemplated
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy VIII-1
-------
SECTION VIE - STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT
STATUTORY AND
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
CERCLA
Definitions of Response Roles
Have a financial management system capable of tracking
Superfund expenses by site, activity, and operable unit, as
applicable, according to object class, as determined
through an EPA "Pre-award Financial Systems Review."
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) establishes criteria to
determine whether an Indian Tribe is Federally recognized
and publishes a list of these Tribes in the Federal Register
annually.
Local governments also play an important role during a
Superfund cleanup. Localities may lead a response action and
often provide important public safety services during
emergencies. For these services, localities may receive some
financial assistance under the Local Government
Reimbursement (LGR) program. The LGR program is
intended to ease the financial burden on local governments
from conducting temporary emergency services in response
to a hazardous substance threat. The program offers
assistance of up to $25,000 per response directly to local
governments.
Congress and EPA have developed a comprehensive
framework of laws and regulations to guide State, political
subdivision, and Indian Tribal involvement. CERCLA, as
amended by SARA, created the original framework for State
and Indian Tribal involvement. In 1990, this framework was
completed with revisions to the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and with
EPA»s development of the Superfund Administrative
Regulation, 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O.
CERCLA authorizes the Federal government to assume
lead responsibility for hazardous substance response activities
at a site, or to transfer the necessary funds and management
responsibility to a State, to a political subdivision of a State,
or to a Federally-recognized Indian Tribe. The NCP is the
regulatory framework for Superfund response, regardless of
who is the lead agency.
EPA and the State hold meetings to decide who will take
the lead responsibility for each site.
For a Fund-lead response, the State, a political
subdivision thereof, or an Indian Tribe may function as a
support agency. As a support agency, a State, political
subdivision, or Indian
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy VIII-2
-------
SECTION Vm - STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT
Tribe may hold some key responsibilities and perform specific
parts of the cleanup, but does not take on the major portion
of tasks for the response.
For a State-lead response, EPA takes on a secondary
role and functions as the support agency. However, EPA
must approve all response selection decisions. A State-lead
response can mean one of three things:
The State is overseeing a PRP cleanup
The State is carrying out most aspects of the cleanup, but
the response is Trust Fund-financed
The State is given lead responsibility and is financing the
response.
Also, a political subdivision may hold primary
responsibility for carrying out the response. In this case, the
response is called apolitical subdivision-lead response For
a political subdivision-lead response, the State and EPA
function as a support agency.
Regardless of who has the lead role at a site, EPA still
maintains responsibility for assuring the protectiveness of the
remedy. Also, EPA is responsible for assuring that the
remedy is in compliance with Federal and State environmental
laws and regulations.
State Assurances There are five assurances a State must make before a
Trust Fund-financed remedial action may take place, whether
EPA or State-lead. CERCLA section 104 requires that a
State must assure it will:
Pay for part of the cleanup costs A State is
required to pay 10 percent of the costs of a remedial
action if the site was privately operated at the time of the
hazardous substance release. A State is required to pay
50 percent or more of all cleanup costs if the State or
locality operated the site when hazardous substances
were disposed there. For example, if a State-operated
municipal landfill is found leaking hazardous substances,
the State would be required to provide at least half the
cost of a Trust Fund- financed response. Political
subdivisions may provide the cost share, but the State
must assure payment in case of default.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy VIII-3
-------
SECTION VIE - STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT
Ensure adequate off-site storage, disposal, or
treatment of hazardous substances removed from a
site as a part of the remedy The State must assure
that off-site facilities are available for storage, disposal, or
treatment.
Assume responsibility for all Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) activities for a remedial action
or removal The State assumes ultimate responsibility
for performing O&M of the selected remedy, even though
a political subdivision may manage the actual O&M.
These activities include activities that are required to
maintain the effectiveness of the remedy.
Document State's commitment to accept interest in
real estate that may need to be acquired for a
Superfund response If EPA determines that an
interest in real estate must be acquired in order to
conduct a remedial response, EPA must first obtain the
agreement of the State in which the interest is located, to
acquire and hold the necessary interest as well as maintain
any institutional controls established during cleanup. The
State must agree to accept transfer of the acquired
interest on or before completion of the response action.
Have capacity for disposal or treatment of all
hazardous wastes expected to be generated within
the State during the next 20 years This assurance
consists of the State's capacity assurance plan (CAP),
which must be approved by EPA before Trust
Fund-financed remedial actions take place in the State.
The CAP must be resubmitted for each group of wastes
the State needs to treat or dispose. The plan must show
that the State has the capacity to treat or dispose of the
wastes generated within the State for the next 20 years.
Federally recognized Indian Tribes are not required to
provide these CERCLA assurances. In many cases, EPA
provides the required assurances for Indian Tribes. If,
however, EPA determines that an interest in real estate must
be acquired in order to conduct the site-specific response
action, Indian Tribes are required to provide the real property
assurance.
The mechanisms for obtaining these assurances include
Cooperative Agreements for State-lead responses, or
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy VIII-4
-------
SECTION Vm - STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT
NCP and Subpart O
MECHANISMSFOR
PROMOTING
INVOLVEMENT
Superfund State Contracts for EPA-lead or political
subdivision-lead responses. These mechanisms are explained
in greater detail below.
The NCP and the Superfund Administrative Regulation,
40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O ( Subpart O») also contribute
to the legislative and regulatory framework of State and
Indian Tribal involvement. Subpart F of the NCP, State
Involvement, requires EPA to solicit and encourage
substantial and meaningful involvement by each State and
Indian Tribe. Subpart F also regulates EPA and State
interaction to ensure consistent communication and
coordination. Subpart O defines how EPA can transfer funds
for site response to States, political subdivisions, and Indian
Tribes to support the development of their Superfund
programs' goals and maintain their ability to respond to
hazardous waste threats.
EPA has defined four ways to involve States, Indian Tribes,
and political subdivisions in Superfund:
! Cooperative Agreements (CAS) Cooperative
Agreements transfer funds from EPA to States, political
subdivisions, or Indian Tribes to lead site-specific
responses or to cover the costs of their participation in
EPA-lead or other CERCLA activities. Also, a CA is the
legally-binding document to obtain required State cost
shares and CERCLA section 104 assurances when a
State or Indian Tribe leads a remedial action.
! Superfund State Contract (SSC) An SSC is a joint,
legally-binding agreement between a State or Indian Tribe
and EPA that assures the transfer of cost-sharing funds
when EPA is leading a Superfund response action. The
SSC documents that the State or Indian Tribe meets all
required assurances under CERCLA. It also can be used
to specify required State involvement during a political
subdivision-lead response.
! Core Program Cooperative Agreements EPA
created Core Program Cooperative Agreements to
provide administrative Superfund program support funds
to States and Indian Tribes. Core Program funding
defrays the cost of essential State and Indian
Tribe activities that cannot be accounted for on a
site-specific basis, but are essential to an active
role in CERCLA implementation. For example,
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy VIII-5
-------
SECTION VIE - STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT
States and Indian Tribes have used Core Program
Cooperative Agreements to pay for administrative and
clerical salaries, computer resources, program
management, recordkeeping, and training.
Superfund Memoranda of Agreement (SMOAs)
EPA developed SMOAs to define the working
relationship between EPA and a State or Indian Tribe. A
SMOA is an optional, non-binding document that
specifies the procedures that EPA and a State or Indian
Tribe will use to implement CERCLA and its guiding
regulations. These procedures then serve as the basis for
developing and coordinating a site-specific Cooperative
Agreement or SSC.
In addition to these four types of agreements defined in the
NCP, there may be other site-specific agreements between
a State and EPA. These agreements may be established to
define EPA and State roles where a State is given the lead but
there is no Trust Fund-financing.
CERCLA section 121 (f) (1) mandates that the State has
the opportunity for "substantial and meaningful" involvement
in the selection of remedial actions. The NCP specifically
addresses the State's role in remedy selection. For sites
where Trust Fund monies or EPA enforcement authority is
used, EPA retains final remedy selection authority, but there
is an opportunity for State concurrence, on remedy selection.
For sites where States use their own enforcement authority
and sources of funding other than the Trust Fund, and the
State has been designated as the lead, the State may select a
remedy without EPA concurrence. However, the State will
still need EPA certification to delete the site from the NPL.
STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL During the first ten years of the Superfund program, and
ACCOMPLISHMENTS especially since the passage of SARA, States and, more
recently, Indian Tribal governments and political subdivisions,
have assumed greater and greater responsibility for Superfund
response. Since 1990, the number of State-lead removal,
remedial, and site assessment activities has increased
significantly.
The number of State-lead activities is greatest in the site
assessment program. In the first ten years of the Superfund
program, States have completed nearly 60 percent of all PAs
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy VIII-6
-------
SECTION Vm - STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT
conducted, and more than 32 percent of all Sis. Two Indian
Tribal governments also have been awarded Cooperative
Agreements to conduct site assessment activities.
States have made an equally significant contribution to
remedial activities at hazardous waste sites. And, the number
of ongoing activities led by States has grown steadily over
time. This increase suggests a strong State commitment
toward long-term cleanup activities. In addition, four Indian
Tribes have been awarded Cooperative Agreements to
conduct support activities during EPA-lead remedial response
activities.
Core Program funds have enhanced State and Indian
Tribal Superfund capabilities. The Core Program began in FY
87 with three pilot States. As of 1991, 44 States, the
Territory of Puerto Rico, and three Indian Tribal
governments are active in the program. The Core Program
will assist each State, Territory, and Indian Tribal government
in determining the long-term roles they will take in Superfund.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy VIII-7
-------
SECTION IX
FEDERAL FACILITIES
OVERVIEW
CERCLA REQUIREMENTS
S Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
S National Priorities List
S Interagency Agreements
FEDERAL AGENCY RESPONSE AUTHORITY UNDER CERCLA
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
SECTION IX
FEDERAL FACILITIES
OVERVIEW
Office of
Federal Facilities
Enforcement (OFFE)
CERCLA REQUIREMENTS
At EPA, the Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
(OFFE), within the Office of Enforcement, is responsible for
ensuring that Federal facilities comply with CERCLA
requirements. The primary goals of OFFE are to assist EPA
Regions to reach and implement CERCLA cleanup
agreements at National Priorities List (NPL) sites on Federal
facilities and to ensure compliance with hazardous substance
laws in a nationally consistent manner. OFFE develops
guidance and policy for Federal facility compliance, assists in
resolving issues that arise in negotiations with Federal
facilities, tracks ongoing negotiations, and supports
enforcement actions.
The Federal facilities that have been identified that require
investigation and possible remediation under CERCLA range
in size from hundreds of acres to tens of thousands of acres,
and many contain multiple contamination areas. Federal
facilities that require investigation are those that manage
hazardous substances or may have potential hazardous
substance problems. The Departments of Defense (DoD),
Interior (DOT), and Energy (DOE) account for about 84
percent of the Federal sites that require investigation.
Hazardous substance contamination at Federal facilities
may result from such activities as:
Manufacturing, testing, loading, and packaging weapons
Maintaining and repairing aircraft and vehicles
Plating metal
Producing, processing, and recovering nuclear materials.
Types of hazardous substances disposed of include
explosives, solvents and cleaning agents, paints, heavy metals,
pesticides, waste oil, and various organics. At DOE facilities,
disposal of high- and low-level radioactive and mixed
hazardous and radioactive substances is a common problem.
Past disposal practices at Federal facilities include disposal in
unlined pits, drainage ditches, holding ponds, drying beds, and
landfills; discharge on the ground; and burning.
CERCLA devotes a special section to Federal facilities,
section 120. Section 120(a) states that Federal departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities are subject to CERCLA just
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy IX-1
-------
SECTION IX - FEDERAL FACILITIES
Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket
National Priorities List
like nongovernment entities, including CERCLA»s liability
provisions. Pertinent guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria
apply in the same manner and to the same extent, with the
exception of requirements pertaining to bonding, insurance,
and financial responsibility.
Section 120 of CERCLA establishes special requirements
and timetables regarding Federal facilities. For example,
section 120(c) requires establishment by EPA of a Federal
Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket that lists
Federal facilities that have reported managing hazardous
substances or releases of hazardous substances. Based on
information submitted under CERCLA and other
environmental statutes, the docket identifies the universe of
Federal facilities to be evaluated for possible NPL listing. The
docket is updated biannually and includes information on
releases of reportable quantities of hazardous substances
under section 103 of CERCLA.
The docket is available for public inspection at EPA
Regional Offices. Each Regional docket contains the
documents submitted under the reporting provisions
described above, and any relevant correspondence, for each
facility in that Region. A complete national index is maintained
at EPA Headquarters.
Once a Federal facility is listed on the docket, CERCLA
requires that a preliminary assessment (PA) be conducted
within 18 months. The statute requires EPA to ensure that a
PA is conducted. EPA requires the Federal agency to
complete a PA and, if necessary, a site inspection (SI) within
18 months. The authority to conduct PAs is delegated to
Federal agencies by Executive Order 12580.
Following the PA and SI, EPA applies the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS), where appropriate, to list Federal
facility sites on the NPL. However, inclusion on the NPL
does not mean Superfund monies are available for cleanup, as
is the case with nonfederal sites. Section 11 l(e) of CERCLA
specifies that the Trust Fund is not available for most remedial
actions at Federal facilities. Still, NPL listing of Federal
facilities serves the purpose of alerting the public and
providing information concerning risks to public health or the
environment from the site. In addition, NPL listing assists
Federal agencies to set cleanup priorities, brings additional
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy IX-2
-------
SECTION IX-FEDERAL FACILITIES
statutory deadlines to bear on response actions, and gives
EPA an important oversight role, including the authority to
determine what the remedy will be.
If a Federal facility is included on the NPL, CERCLA
mandates that the facility begin a remedial investigation/
feasibility study (RI/FS), in consultation with EPA and the
State, within 6 months of listing. EPA and the State must
publish an enforceable timetable and deadlines for RI/FS
completion, and EPA must review the RI/FS when
completed.
Interagency Agreements Section 120 of CERCLA requires the Federal facility to
enter into an interagency agreement (IAG) with EPA for
the remedial action. The IAG provides the technical, legal and
management framework under which the response at the
Federal facility is conducted. The IAG specifies who is
responsible for what and when. The IAG lists the Federal
facility's responsibilities as lead agency. However, EPA
retains authority over remedy selection.
lAGs are enforceable through CERCLA's section 310
citizen suit provision. In addition, section 122(1) specifically
authorizes imposition of civil penalties for failure or refusal to
comply with an IAG
According to CERCLA, the IAG is to be entered into
within 180 days of EPA's review of the RI/FS. But many
times the negotiations are conducted when the Federal facility
is promulgated to the NPL.
EPA policy, reflected in the model lAGs developed with
DoD and DOE, is to enter into an IAG before, rather than
after, the RI/FS is conducted. This provides for early input by
EPA and the State into the RI/FS and remedy selection
process. EPA policy is to try to have three-party lAGs, with
the State joining EPA and the Federal facility as an active
partner and signatory. However, if the State is not amenable
to participating in the IAG, a two-party IAG may be
established between EPA and the Federal facility.
CERCLA requires cleanup, defined as continuous on-site
presence, to begin at a Federal facility no later than 15
months after RI/FS completion. The RI/FS is complete when
the Record of Decision (ROD) is signed. In their annual
budget
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy IX-3
-------
SECTION IX - FEDERAL FACILITIES
FEDERAL AGENCY
RESPONSE AUTHORITY
UNDER CERCLA
submissions, Federal agencies must include a review of
alternative funding that might be used to provide for cleanup
costs. The annual budget submission also has to include a
statement on the hazards posed to public health and welfare,
and the environment, as well as the consequences of failure to
begin and complete remedial action. In addition, each Federal
agency participating in the CERCLA program must submit an
annual report to Congress. This report must describe the
Federal agency's progress in such areas as reaching lAGs and
conducting RI/FSs and cleanups.
Section 120 and Executive Order 12580 delegates
CERCLA section 104 response authority to Federal agencies
for releases on their facilities or originating from their facilities.
Such response authority must be exercised in accordance
with section 120. This allows the EPA Administrator to make
the final decision on remedy selection should EPA and a
Federal agency disagree. Under Executive Order 12580,
EPA is given the response authority under CERCLA for
emergency removals at Federal facilities owned or operated
by agencies other than DoD and DOE.
Federal agencies have their own environmental programs.
DoD established the Installation Restoration Program (IRP)
in 1975. Under the IRP, each service operates a program to
identify and evaluate past waste disposal practices at DoD
facilities. Studies and remediation are conducted as
necessary. Section 211 of CERCLA governs management of
the IRP.
DOE initiated an informal program in 1984 to identify,
evaluate, and remediate hazardous substance contamination
at DOE facilities. DOE is developing a formal response
program.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy IX-4
-------
SECTION X
COMMUNITY RELATIONS/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
OVERVIEW
COMMUNITY RELATIONS REQUIREMENTS
S Community Relations Plan
S Information Repositories/Administrative Record
S Proposed Plan
S Public Comment Period
S Respond to Comments
S Remedial Design Fact Sheet
OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND ACTIVITIES
S Technical Assistance Grants
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
SECTION X
COMMUNITY RELATIONS/
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
OVERVIEW
The public is deeply concerned about, and often fearful of
the potential impacts of hazardous substances on their health
and safety. Many hazardous substance releases occur in
populated areas, and the surrounding communities are often
concerned about the effects these hazardous substances may
have on their health and the health of their children. The
Superfund program recognizes the public's rights and interest
in hazardous waste management, and makes conscious
attempts to include communities in the decision-making
process.
The action-oriented nature of the Superfund program
promotes a comprehensive, community relations program
designed to promote communication among all parties
involved in, or affected by, the Superfund process. The
overall goal of public participation is to build trust and
credibility, and to keep emotions, human energy, and conflicts
focused on substantive issues and solutions. Public
participation provides an opportunity for all interested parties
to become informed and involved, and to influence response
action development and implementation. EPA has found that
actively involved community members improve Superfund
response decisions. An involved community better
understands the Superfund process and contributes valuable
site information and history.
The community relations initiative has grown and matured
since Superfund's inception in 1980. From the beginning,
EPA has recognized the importance of community input and
involvement in the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. In the
early days of the program, community relations activities
generally occurred on an informal, site-specific basis with no
required activities. As the Superfund program evolved, EPA
began to formulate community relations policy statements and
develop guidance. The 1982 NCP required community
relations activities for all remedial cleanups and for removals
lasting more than 120 days. In 1986, SARA made community
relations a legislated requirement and in 1990, the
Management I Review of the Superfund Program (90-Day
Study) made recommendations to further improve the
community relations program.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy X-l
-------
SECTION X - COMMUNITY RELATIONS / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
EPA
Public
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
REQUIREMENTS
Throughout the years, one aspect of the program has
been retained EPA still conducts community relations
activities on a site-specific basis. Although the overall
program has many required activities, each activity is tailored
to meet the needs of the specific community. These
community relations programs strive to address the most
important issues to the public, the level of concern, and the
economic and social structure of the community.
In general, the Superfund community relations program is
designed to encourage communication with affected citizens
and public participation in the decision-making process. The
program has three main objectives:
Keep the public informed of planned or ongoing actions,
the nature of the environmental problem, the threats it
may pose, the responses under consideration, and the
progress being made.
Give the public the opportunity to comment on and
provide input to technical decisions.
Focus and resolve conflict. Conflict may be unavoidable
in some circumstances, but it can be constructive if it
brings into the open alternative viewpoints.
This open communication better enables EPA to respond to
community concerns during each step of the cleanup process.
EPA conducts over a dozen community relations activities
in conjunction with response action decisions (generally at
NPL sites). While similar, public participation activities may
vary during removal actions and the remedial process, but
generally include the following major activities:
Site-specific Community Relations Plan (CRP)
Information Repositories /Administrative Record
Explanation of Planned Response Activities
Public Comment Periods
Response to Comments
Remedial Design Fact Sheet.
Each activity contributes to the community's involvement in
the Superfund process.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy X-2
-------
SECTION X - COMMUNITY RELATIONS / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Community Relations Plan
Information Repositories/
Administrative Record
A site-specific Community Relations Plan (CRP) is the
foundation for EPA's community relations efforts during a site
cleanup. The CRP outlines continued interaction with the
community based on past public interest and concerns. This
plan:
Lists various ways to encourage effective, two-way
communication between the community and EPA
Identifies locations for information repositories and public
meetings
Summarizes the conditions and history of a site, and
provides a chronology of past community involvement.
To develop a CRP EPA must conduct personal interviews
with individuals who represent the community, i.e., concerned
residents, State and local officials, business representatives,
educators, and representatives of environmental and other
community organizations.
The CRP synthesizes the regulatory, technical, and
community interest aspects of a site. The CRP benefits both
EPA and the community by reflecting past events and current
concerns. Activities specifically designed to satisfy the
informational needs of both EPA and the community are also
outlined in the CRP. The CRP is both a tool and a measure
of EPA accountability to the community.
Later in the Superfund remedial cleanup process, EPA
revises the CRP to ensure that new community concerns and
questions are addressed. This revision is made after EPA has
selected a remedy based on community input, and before the
remedial design is under way.
As a part of every CRP, EPA plans an information
repository. EPA is required to set up this file of information
related to the site in an accessible, convenient location in the
community, typically a library or town hall. Examples of
documents in the information repository include site work
plans, the CRP, the remedial investigation/feasibility study
(RI/FS), Health Assessment, Proposed Plan, sampling
reports, fact sheets, and other special reports developed for
the site. EPA continually updates the repository and ensures
that the
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy X-3
-------
SECTION X - COMMUNITY RELATIONS / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Proposed Plan
facility housing the file has copying capabilities. EPA may
establish more than one information repository in the site
community. The number of repositories depends on the site
and community circumstances, such as size, population
distribution, and the nature and degree of community interest.
In addition, at least one information repository in the
community must contain EPAs Administrative Record file
for the site. The administrative record file consists of the
technical documents that form the basis for all decisions
concerning the site. It also is an element in the public
participation process, because it may be reviewed by the
public and contains all public comments on the proposed
response alternatives and EPAs response to those comments.
Since the administrative record contains all technical
documents and comments, it is the primary document
available for judicial review when a site remedy is challenged.
An administrative record is required by law for all removal
and remedial actions taken under CERCLA authority. The
administrative record file is kept both at the selected
information repository and in the Regional Office.
During the remedial process, EPA prepares a Proposed
Plan, after the RI/FS is completed and a preferred cleanup
alternative has been recommended. This plan summarizes:
Environmental conditions at the site
Alternative cleanup technologies
addressing the contamination
considered for
The remedy proposed to be selected by EPA
EPAs reasons for preferring that remedy over the others.
Because the Proposed Plan is a public participation
document, EPA composes it for a lay audience. Typically, this
is done through a Proposed Plan fact sheet, which EPA
distributes to individuals on its site mailing list and any other
interested parties. In addition, EPA publishes a notice
regarding the availability of the Proposed Plan in a local
newspaper of general circulation. This notice summarizes the
plan and announces the public comment period.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy X-4
-------
SECTION X - COMMUNITY RELATIONS / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public Comment Period
Respond to Comments
Before EPA selects the remedy in the remedial process,
EPA provides community members a public comment
period and an opportunity for a public meeting to discuss the
plan. Citizens are entitled to a minimum of 30 days to review
and comment on the Proposed Plan and other potential
remedial alternatives. Comments to the plan may be made
orally or in writing. EPA is required to extend the comment
period, for a minimum of 30 additional days, upon receipt of
a timely request to do so.
EPA routinely holds public meetings on Proposed Plans
to ensure that site community members have had an
opportunity to voice questions, opinions or concerns about a
proposed remedy. For removal actions, if time permits, public
comment periods and meetings are held on the action
memorandum and engineering evaluation/cost analysis
(EE/CA)if available. Finally, as required by EPA Guidance
and the NCP, EPA hires court reporters for these public
meetings, to provide verbatim transcripts to document public
concerns and comments. In some cases, the public's
involvement has changed the course of Superfund projects.
At the conclusion of the public comment period, EPA
prepares a summary of all questions and comments received
from the public and EPA's responses to these inquiries and
comments. This summary of inquiries and responses, entitled
the Responsiveness Summary, is included in EPA's
Record of Decision (ROD) for the site. For removal actions,
a written response to significant comments on the action
memorandum and EE/CA is included in the administrative
record file. This summary should be written in clear,
east-to-understand language, so that the public can find
EPA's response to their comments.
If EPA significantly changes its selected remedy as a
result of its review of the RI/FS and comments, and the
changes could not reasonably have been anticipated by the
commenters, EPA publishes a revised Proposed Plan
explaining the differences to the public before completing the
ROD. In such cases, EPA extends or renews the public
comment period. Then EPA publishes a notice of the ROD.
The notice informs the public of the final decision and the
availability of the ROD for public review.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy X-5
-------
SECTION X - COMMUNITY RELATIONS / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Remedial Design Fact Sheet
OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND
ACTIVITIES
Upon selection of the remedial action remedy, EPA
prepares and distributes a remedial design fact sheet to the
local community. The fact sheet explains the technical
concepts in the remedial design, using non-technical terms
whenever possible.
In addition to all of the above specific requirements, the
Administrative Procedure Act and SARA impose public
participation requirements when EPA proposes to do any of
the following: delete sites from the NPL; add sites to the
NPL; or include a specific site in a special research and
design program known as the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program. If EPA proposes to
add or delete a site from the NPL, the Agency publishes a
notice in the Federal Register to inform the public and solicit
comments. In addition, EPA holds a public comment period
on proposals to add sites to the SITE program.
Beyond specific requirements, EPA Regional Offices
conduct a broad spectrum of activities at sites throughout the
RI/FS process. Depending upon the nature of the site and the
specific needs of the community, EPA activities may include
producing fact sheets, conducting school programs, operating
a telephone hot line, holding media briefings, updating key
local leaders, preparing videotape productions, and facilitating
the formation of local task forces.
Technical Assistance Grants
To help communities understand the technical aspects of
hazardous wastes, EPA created the Technical Assistance
Grant (TAG) program. Established by Congress in 1986, the
TAG program helps ensure that affected individuals are well
informed about the conditions and activities at Superfund sites
in their communities. The program provides grants for groups
of individuals to hire independent technical advisors who can
help them understand technical information, findings, and
recommendations related to a site.
The TAG program is intended to provide grants to groups
for up to a three-year period. When the period is over,
groups who have monies remaining (and work at the site is
still underway) may apply for a continuation of the grant.
However, because cleanup of a hazardous waste site is
complex and may take longer than three years, groups
sometimes spend their monies before cleanup is complete. If
this is the case, groups may apply for a waiver, and if
approved, receive an additional $50,000.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy X-6
-------
SECTION X - COMMUNITY RELATIONS / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Groups eligible to receive TAGs are groups of individuals
who live near the site and whose health, economic well-being,
or enjoyment of the environment is directly threatened. Such
groups may be existing citizens' associations, environmental
or health advocacy or similar organizations, or coalitions of
such groups formed to deal with community concerns about
a hazardous waste site and its impact on the surrounding area.
Grant funds may be used to hire technical advisors to increase
citizen understanding of information that already exists about
the site, or that is developed during the Superfund cleanup
process. Grant monies are often used to pay technical
advisors to review site-related documents, meet with the
recipient group to explain technical information, interpret
technical information for the community, and travel to
meetings and hearings related to the site.
In conclusion, Superfund participants at the Federal,
State, and local levels acknowledge the importance of public
participation in the Superfund program. Because it is such an
integral part of all cleanup operations, EPA is constantly
striving to improve its communications with the public.
Over the past 10 years EPA has gained experience about
the nature of public involvement in hazardous waste issues
and, in turn, about the most helpful approaches to public
participation. EPA has learned, for example, that its decision-
making ability is enhanced by actively soliciting comments and
information from the public. Experience has shown that the
earlier EPA establishes a working relationship with citizens
near a site, the greater chance there is for trust and confidence
to develop between the parties. EPA also has found that
communities often are able to provide valuable information on
local history, citizen involvement, and site conditions.
Establishing a dialogue between EPA staff and citizens, allows
both the public and EPA access to important information, and
enables EPA to respond to community needs.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy X-7
-------
SECTION XI
MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
OVERVIEW
MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE
Management Review of the Superfund Program/9 0-Day Study
Long-Term Contracting Strategy
Delivery of Analytical Services
Superfund 30-Day Study
Management Information Systems and Operating Guidelines
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Technical Information Systems
Technology Development Programs
PROGRAM-WIDE MEASUREMENT OF PROGRESS
Measures of Progress
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
SECTION XI
MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE
OVERVIEW
MANAGEMENT
INFRASTRUCTURE
Management Review of the
Superfund Program/90 Day
Study
The complexity and volume of Superfund activity requires a
normal set of systems and procedures to manage the cleanup
process, measure program progress, establish short-term and
long-term goals, and encourage the development and use of
cleanup technologies. To serve this purpose, the Superfund
program established a program management and technical
infrastructure. This infrastructure includes systems for planning and
tracking expenditures at thousands of hazardous waste sites
nationwide, scientific and engineering support to provide
state-of-the-art solutions to hazardous waste problems, and a
program-wide measurement and improvement process.
CERCLA, for the first time, required EPA to step beyond its
traditional regulatory role and provided response authority to
clean up hazardous waste sites. As a result, EPA designed,
developed, and put in place a network of policies, procedures
and contracting mechanisms to achieve the ambitious goals of the
program. This network is being continually refined to provide the
policy, information management, and accounting tools necessary
for effective program implementation. Several top-level studies of
program operations have led the Superfund program to the
management practices it follows today.
In 1989, the EPA Administrator committed to undertake a
comprehensive study of the Superfund program. That study is
entitled the Management Review of the Superfund Program,
and is known as the 90-Day Study. The review resulted in more
than 50 recommendations to address the fundamental
management challenges facing the program. These include:
Reducing risks from a growing list of sites that present health,
safety, and environmental problems
Making defensible cleanup decisions, sometimes without
complete knowledge of environmental and health risks
Maximizing the use of treatment technologies, while
recognizing that many of the technologies are new and
untested in the field
Making efficient use of limited resources.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XI-1
-------
SECTION XI - MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
"90-Day Study"
T Strategic
~~ -
Goals
tZZ~~
The 90-Day Study also outlined eight strategic goals for the
second decade of the Superfund program:
Control acute threats immediately EPA will quickly
evaluate and appropriately respond to ensure protection from
immediate threats to people and the environment.
Emphasize enforcement EPA will use its authorities to
encourage or compel PRPs to conduct site work.
Address worst sites/worst problems first After
resolving the immediate threat, EPA will begin remedial work
to address the highest priority problems.
Monitor and maintain sites over the long-term EPA
will monitor Superfund sites over the long-term to ensure the
remedy remains protective.
Develop and use new technologies EPA will develop,
demonstrate, and use new or innovative
technologies to achieve final site cleanups, to the maximum
extent practical.
Improve efficiency of program operations EPA will
pursue a "one Superfund" approach to site cleanup activity
and enforcement against polluters (i.e., the removal, remedial,
and enforcement programs will work together as "one").
Encourage full public participation EPA will increase
the role of citizens in Superfund decision-making and
encourage clear and consistent two-way communication.
Foster cooperation with other Federal and State
agencies EPA will work with State agencies, natural
resource trustees, Indian Tribal governments, and other
Federal agencies to ensure an effective and cooperative
relationship.
Acting on the recommendations outlined in the 90-Day Study, EPA
is making continual improvements to the Superfund program and
has achieved significant progress to address immediate threats,
move ahead on permanent remedies, apply "enforcement first"
principles, and encourage innovative technologies.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Xl-2
-------
SECTION XI - MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Long-Term Contracting Strategy Another significant accomplishment of the 90-Day Study is the
development of a Long-Term Contracting Strategy for
Superfund field operations. EPA analyzed the long-term
contracting needs of the program, and designed a portfolio of
Superfund contracts to meet those needs over the second 10
years of the program. The strategy was completed in September
1990.
The Long-Term Contracting Strategy is built on several key
principles. The strategy: (1) supports an integrated "one program"
approach to enforcement and site cleanup; (2) enhances the
competitive environment by reducing the size of contracts and
creating more opportunities for small and disadvantaged
businesses; and, (3) provides mechanisms for greater flexibility
and improved oversight and cost management by giving the
Regions full responsibility for the contracts.
The principal components of the Long-Term Contracting
Strategy are:
Enforcement Contract Support Enforcement Support
Contracts will provide support for specific enforcement
related activities (e.g., litigation support, PRP searches).
These contracts will be competed and managed on a Regional
basis. Enforcement oversight activities will be moved to
remedial contracts.
Regional Management Contract Support Regional
Management Contracts will provide support for administrative
and information management activities in the Regions. These
contracts will be competed and managed on a Regional basis.
Removal Contract Support Technical Assistance Team
(TAT) Contracts provide support for removal technical
assistance and will be competed and managed on a Regional
basis. Time-critical removal and remedial response activities
will be combined, competed, and managed on a Regional
basis. Non-time-critical removal actions will be combined
with remedial contracts and conducted by Response Action
Contractors.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Xl-3
-------
SECTION XI - MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Analytical Contract Support Environmental Services
Assistance Team Contracts will continue to provide
environmental services support and will be competed and
managed on a Regional basis.
Preremedial (Site Assessment) Contract Support
TAT contracts will provide support for preremedial activities,
which will combine dedicated team programs of preremedial
support and removal technical assistance into one integrated
program. In the interim, Alternative Remedial Contracting
Strategy (ARCS) contracts will provide preremedial support.
Remedial Contract Support Response Action Contracts
provide support for all remedial activities and will be managed
on a Regional basis. Existing ARCS contracts will be used to
perform all enforcement oversight activities, conduct
non-time-critical removal actions, and provide interim
preremedial support.
Site Specific Contracts Site Specific Contracts provide
support tailored to the needs of a specific site or types of
sites, contaminants, or activities.
Transportation and Disposal Contract Support A
transportation and disposal broker will provide assistance to
resolve technical difficulties in making arrangements for
transportation and disposal of hazardous substances.
The EPA Administrator commissioned a task force in June 1991
to take a hard look at Superfund contracting. The task force
identified several areas for improvement. EPA will: (1) establish
a concrete goal of reducing program management costs to less
than 20 percent of total contract costs; (2) take steps to terminate
contractors that perform poorly; and (3) implement a program of
timely audits for all ARCS contractors.
Delivery of Analytical Services In April 1991, EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR) established ataskforceto develop a Superfund
long-term strategy for the delivery of analytical services (e.g.,
lab analyses, data validation, QA plans) by September 1992. The
project is focused on three primary areas:
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Xl-4
-------
SECTION XI - MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
The long-term programmatic needs for analytical services
The roles and responsibilities of private parties, EPA
contractors, and EPA staff in addressing these needs
The alternative delivery mechanisms for analytical services.
The task force is comprised of members from all ten EPA
Regions, representing the Waste Management, Environmental
Services, and Management Divisions. The Headquarters
participants include representatives from OERR, and the Offices
of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE), Administration and
Resources Management (OARM), Research and Development
(ORD), and Regional Operations (ORO). A steering committee
of eight senior representatives from the Regions and eight senior
representatives from Headquarters oversees the project and
communicates issues and results to senior management.
Superfund 30-Day Study In 1991, EPA conducted the Superfund 30-Day Study to
find ways to invigorate the Superfund program and improve the
pace of cleanups. The overall goal of this study was to reduce the
current period of 7 to 10 years from site discovery to completion
of remedial construction, by about 2 to 2.5 years. In this effort,
EPA is doing the following:
Setting aggressive cleanup targets
Streamlining the Superfund process
Elevating site-specific issues for timely resolution
Accelerating private party cleanups
Improving public awareness of Superfund successes
Standardizing remedies and investigation procedures
Prioritizing risk reduction.
The Superfund program has a new position of National Superfund
Director, charged with overseeing all Superfund procurements
and budgeting and implementing measures to improve contracting
and accelerate cleanups. This Director is supported by a 20 to 30
person troubleshooting team designed to serve as a "strategic
nerve center" for Superfund, providing an early warning system
for identifying problems and solutions.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Xl-5
-------
SECTION XI - MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Management Information
Systems and Operating
Guidelines
c
CERCLIS
j i
"I
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE
The continuous improvement and analysis of Superfund
progress is complemented by ongoing improvements in formal
management information systems, technology programs, and
accomplishments reporting.
Superfund's management systems are designed to coordinate
the large sums of money and thousands of tasks involved with
simultaneously conducting and overseeing hundreds of projects
across the nation. The primary system is CERCLIS. This data
base tracks all reported sites as potential National Priorities List
(NPL) sites, the activity at those sites, and the funding related to
each site. Once a site is entered into CERCLIS, it remains there
regardless of the type of action taken. Ownership of the data in
CERCLIS resides with the Regions and sponsorship is the
responsibility of the Program Offices. CERCLIS is available
on-line at Headquarters and on the Regional Local Area
Network.
EPA has formulated procedures to be followed by EPA staff
in Headquarters, the 10 Regional EPA offices, other Federal
agencies, State agencies, contractors, and private parties for
implementing the Superfund program and responding to questions
from the public. These procedures are explained in directives,
guidances, and fact sheets describing each step in the technically
complex process of identifying, investigating, and cleaning up sites.
These Superfund documents are available to EPA staff through
the Superfund Document Information Center and to all others
through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). In
addition, EPA maintains a toll-free hotline with staff available to
respond to Superfund related questions from EPA and the public
at 1-800-424-9346.
Finding solutions to the problems associated with hazardous
substances involves the combination of empirical results of field
sampling with theoretical models by hundreds of environmental
scientists. These results and models are ever-changing and
constantly being updated. For example, the limits for detecting
contaminants in soil or water are constantly changing and the task
of estimating the degree to which human health and the
environment are endangered by hazardous substances is
becoming increasingly complex. Finally, there is a great deal of
uncertainty about the engineering techniques and equipment used
in handling,
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Xl-6
-------
SECTION XI - MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Technical Information Systems
containing, treating, and disposing of hazardous substances. EPA
frequently develops guidance documents and supports numerous
research programs to address these problems.
A number of technical information systems have been
developed and enhanced to support the Superfund program.
These systems store up-to-date information on a wide range of
topics from the potential risk imposed by chemicals to an
information clearinghouse for performance data on treatment
technologies. Some of these new technical data systems are:
Technology Development
Programs
Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center
(ATTIC) a computer-based, key word search data base
that will contain data and abstracts from EPA treatability
studies, demonstrations and remedial actions, and State
activities.
Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS)
a computerized system to record and retrieve all notification
related data from releases of hazardous substances, waste,
oil, or other substances. This system maintains data on the
frequency, amounts, and types of substances released
regionally and nationally.
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) - a system
that stores EPA accepted lexicological information about a
specific chemical.
IRIS and ERNS are available by on-line computer for remote
information retrieval. ATTIC is accessible by both telephone and
on-line computer.
One of the maj or programs to address technology development
needs is the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
program. SITE provides the treatment technologies necessary to
address new contamination scenarios. The SITE program is really
three related programs: the Demonstration Program, the Emerging
Technologies Program, and the Measurement and Monitoring
Technologies Program.
The Demonstration Program is designed to generate
engineering and cost data on selected, innovative technologies.
The major focus of the SITE program has been on the
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Xl-7
-------
SECTION XI - MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
PROGRAM-WIDE
MEASUREMENT OF
PROGRESS
Measures of Progress
Demonstration Program. In this program, technology developers
are responsible for demonstrating their innovative systems at
selected sites, while EPA is responsible for sampling, analyzing,
and evaluating all test results. The information gathered during the
demonstrations is used in combination with other data as a basis
for selecting technologies appropriate for cleaning up Superfund
sites.
The Emerging Technologies Program provides 2-year
funding to developers of emerging technologies to support
bench-scale and pilot testing of innovative treatment technologies.
The Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program
supports the development and demonstration of innovative
field-ready technologies that detect, monitor, or measure
hazardous substances in the air, surface water, soil, subsurface,
waste materials, and biological tissues.
The principles of Total Quality Management (TQM)
are being applied as a means for ensuring the continuing
evolution and development of the performance of Superfund. Steps
are being taken to: (1) clearly identify Superfund's customers and
their requirements; (2) produce error-free work; (3 Continuously
improve operations; and (4) effectively manage the workload by
preventing waste and inefficiency. Evidence of these steps
includes the creation of a Quality Action Team to examine ways
to improve the quality of risk assessments for Superfund projects.
Superfund is always looking for ways to improve the process
while reducing unnecessary paperwork.
One of the real problems facing the Superfund program has
been measurement of program progress and communication of
program success to the public. Superfund has made many gains
in terms of protecting human health and the environment.
However, to date, little attention has been paid to any
measurements other than the number of sites deleted from the
NPL. In the first 10 years of the program, thousands of
unmeasured actions have been taken to protect people and the
environment from the hazards these sites pose. Some of these
actions are responses to emergencies such as hazardous
substance spills, while others are long term actions to clean up
contamination that may have accumulated for decades.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Xl-8
-------
SECTION XI - MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
To measure the progress accomplished, EPA has now
developed several environmental indicators of progress.
These indicators relate to the overall goals of the Superfund
program:
Control of immediate threats to human health, welfare and
the environment (make sites safer)
Achievement of long-term site cleanup goals (make sites
clean)
Removal of contamination from the environment (treat
hazardous waste).
EPA uses these new indicators to demonstrate to the public,
in understandable terms, the progress made by Superfund. In
general, the measures indicate how many sites are free from
immediate threats (i.e., safer), are cleaner, and have
permanent solutions. Development of these means of
measuring progress is vital to determine the overall goals and
accomplishments of the Superfund program. A new model
that incorporates alternative measures of progress is further
discussed in Section XTV: Future Directions of the Superfund
Program.
To obtain further information regarding Superfund
program priorities and objectives from fiscal year to fiscal
year, refer to the Superfund Program Management
Manual 1991, Vol. I, EPA/540/P-91/004A.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Xl-9
-------
SECTION XII
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
OVERVIEW
DEFINITION OF ARARs
S Applicable Requirements
S Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
S "To Be Considered" Materials
SCOPE OF ARARs
S ARARs and Remedial Actions
S ARARs and Removal Actions
S Substantive Requirements
S Administrative Requirements
S On-Site vs. Off-Site
TYPES OF ARARs
TIMING OF COMPLIANCE
POINT OF COMPLIANCE
ARAR WAIVERS
S Interim Measure
S Greater Risk to Health and the Environment
S Technical Impracticability
S Equivalent Standard of Performance
S Inconsistent Application of State Requirements
S Fund-Balancing
-------
SECTION XI
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
OVERVIEW
ARARs:
Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements
DEFINITION OF ARARs
Compliance with the applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) of other environmental
laws is a cornerstone of CERCLA. To avoid simply
displacing the contamination at a site from one medium (i.e.,
air, soil, water) into another, identification of ARARs is the
major prerequisite for setting cleanup goals, selecting the
remedy, and determining how to implement the remedy while
assuring protection of human health and the environment.
However, the diverse characteristics of CERCLA sites
preclude the development of prescribed ARARs, so that, by
necessity, identification of ARARs is conducted on a
site-by-site basis.
Congress provided a statutory basis for ARARs in
SARA, which added section 121, "Cleanup Standards," to
CERCLA. Section 121(d) mandates the degree of on-site
cleanup that sites must achieve. According to this section,
response actions conducted under sections 104 and 106 of
CERCLA must at least attain (or justify a waiver of) all
ARARs of other Federal environmental laws, more stringent
State environmental laws, and State facility-siting laws.
ARARs include:
Any standard, requirement, criterion, or limitation under
any Federal environmental law, such as the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SOWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA), and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
Any promulgated standard, requirement, criterion, or
limitation under a State environmental or facility-siting
law, including those contained in EPA-approved
programs, that has been identified by the State to EPA in
a timely manner.
SARA modified the waivers listed in the 1985 National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) and established State standards as ARARs if they
have been promulgated, are enforceable, and are more
stringent than similar Federal standards. In March 1990, EPA
promulgated revisions to the NCP that incorporate the
ARARs provisions contained in SARA. For the purposes of
section 121 (d), the
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Xll-l
-------
SECTION Xn - APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
term "State" includes the Territories and Possessions of the
United States, as well as the Federally- recognized Indian
Tribes.
Applicable Requirements
ARARs consist of two sets of requirements, those that are
applicable and those that are relevant and appropriate.
Applicable requirements are those substantive standards that
specifically address the situation at a CERCLA site; however,
an applicable requirement need not have been promulgated
specifically to apply to CERCLA sites. Decision-makers have
minimal discretion in determining whether a requirement is
legally applicable; if an objective comparison of the
jurisdictional prerequisites of the requirement to the
circumstances at the site shows a direct correspondence, the
requirement is applicable. These prerequisites consist of
identifying: (1) who is subject to the statute or regulation; (2)
what types of substances or activities fall under the authority
of the statute or regulation; (3) what is the time period for
which the statute or regulation is in effect; and, (4) what types
of activities does the statute or regulation require, limit, or
prohibit. If a requirement is not legally applicable, a decision-
maker must exercise considerable best professional judgment
to determine whether it is relevant and appropriate under the
circumstances of the release of contamination.
Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
The second set of requirements is relevant and
appropriate requirements. The procedure for determining
whether a requirement is relevant and appropriate is a
two-step process. First, to determine relevance, the
decision-maker must determine whether the requirement
addresses problems or situations sufficiently similar to the
circumstances of the proposed response action. Second, for
appropriateness, the determination must be made as to
whether the requirement would also be well-suited to the
conditions of the site. There are eight comparisons which must
be made, where pertinent, in determining relevance and
appropriateness when responding under CERCLA:
The respective purposes of the requirement and of the
response action
The medium regulated or affected by the requirement and
the medium contaminated or affected at the site
The substances regulated by the requirement and those
found at the site
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XII-2
-------
SECTION Xn - APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
"To Be Considered" Materials
(TBCS)
SCOPE OF ARARs
The activities regulated by the requirement and the
remedial action contemplated at the site
Any variances, waivers, or exemptions of the requirement
and their availability for the circumstances at the site
The type of site regulated and affected by the release or
action
The type and size of the structure or facility regulated, and
those affected by the release or contemplated by the
action
Any consideration of use or potential use of affected
resources, in the requirement and at the site.
Note that in some cases, only a portion of a requirement
will be both relevant and appropriate. Once a requirement is
deemed relevant and appropriate, it must be attained (or
waived). If a requirement is not both relevant and
appropriate, it is not an ARAR.
Many Federal and State environmental and public health
agencies develop criteria, advisories, guidance, and proposed
standards that are not legally enforceable but contain
information that would be helpful in carrying out, or in
determining the level of protectiveness of, selected remedies.
In other words, "to be considered" materials (TBCs) are
meant to complement the use of ARARs, not to compete with
or replace them. Because TBCs are not ARARs, their
identification and use are not mandatory.
In conjunction with the completion of the baseline risk
assessment, where no ARARs address a particular situation,
or the existing ARARs do not ensure sufficient protectiveness,
the TBC advisories, criteria, or guidelines should be used to
set cleanup targets. TBCs may be invaluable in deciding how
to carry out a particular remedy. Many ARARs have broad
performance criteria but do not provide specific instructions
for implementation. Often those instructions are contained in
supplemental program guidance.
ARARs are identified on a site-by-site basis for all on-site
response actions where CERCLA authority is the basis for
cleanup. The lead agency as well as the supporting agencies
must identify and communicate information about potential
ARARs to each other. For Trust Fund-financed CERCLA
sites
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy Xll-3
-------
SECTION Xn - APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
ARARs and Remedial Actions
ARARs and Removal Actions
and for those actions taken pursuant to CERCL A section 106
authority, EPA makes the final decision on ARARs. Cleanups
at all CERCLA sites, regardless of which agency has the lead,
must comply with (or waive) ARARs.
It is important to recognize that CERCLA addresses two
types of response actions, remedial and removal. All
remedial actions taken under CERCLA must meet ARARs
at the completion of the action (or justify a waiver). Further,
the NCP requires remedies to attain or waive ARARs during
the course of a remedial action. Moreover, where an ARAR
requires a permit, CERCLA provides for the on-site work to
comply with only the substantive, but not the administrative,
requirements of the ARAR. Complying with ARARs both
during the implementation and upon completion of an action
helps the lead agency define the ways in which the activity can
be carried out in a manner that is protective of human health
and the environment.
Although CERCLA specifies ARARs only for on-site
remedial actions, the NCP requires removal actions to attain
ARARs to the extent practicable, considering the urgency of
the situation at the site. Regulations under other environmental
and public health laws may help determine the appropriate
manner in which to proceed with a removal action. Removal
actions generally focus on the stabilization of a release or
threat of release and mitigation of near-term threats.
EPA has adopted two criteria for determining
practicability for removal sites:
The urgency of the situation
The scope of the removal action.
Where the conditions at a site constrain or preclude efforts to
identify and attain ARARs, the documentation of these
conditions will be considered sufficient basis for justifying not
attaining all ARARs. For example, because of the urgency at
the site, an On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) may have to
undertake an immediate response to remove or stabilize
leaking drums near a residential area in order to prevent a fire
or explosion. Also, where a removal action is for a limited
purpose (e.g., to address a direct-contact threat), attainment
of soil cleanup ARARs that would require a more extensive
response action may be beyond the scope of the removal
action, and, therefore, impracticable.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XII-4
-------
SECTION Xn - APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
Substantive Requirements
Requirements are only ARARs when they pertain to the
specific action(s) undertaken on-site. For example, if the
removal of drums also included excavating highly
contaminated soil, the removal action would not have to meet
standards for other media, if those standards might be
ARARs for a final remedial action at the site.
Just as CERCLA addresses two types of response
actions, it also addresses two classes of requirements:
substantive and administrative.
Administrative Requirements
Although a substantive requirement usually specifies a
level or standard of control, it could also provide performance
criteria or location restrictions. In addition, monitoring
requirements are considered substantive, for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the levels and limitations set in the
decision document have been attained.
Remedies conducted entirely on-site must comply with
only the substantive provisions of requirements that are
ARARs. Also, CERCLA section 121(e)(l) specifically
exempts on-site actions from obtaining Federal, State, and
local permits, although the substantive provisions of permitting
programs that are ARARs must be met (or waived). This
permit exemption applies to all on-site CERCLA activities
both before and after the remedy has been selected. The
exemption applies regardless of whether the lead agency is
EPA, another Federal agency, or a State, when the activity
(which could be an investigation or a section 106 action) is
conducted entirely on-site.
Administrative requirements consist ofthose
mechanisms that facilitate the implementation of the
substantive requirements of statutes or regulations. In other
words, requirements that in and of themselves do not define
a level or standard of control are considered administrative
(e.g., approval by or consultation with administrative bodies,
application for permits, documentation, reporting, and record
keeping). However, EPA recognizes the benefits of
consultation, coordination, reporting, and other such practices
and strongly encourages decision-makers to engage in these
activities, as well.
Exemption from administrative requirements for on-site
actions promotes expeditious response to protect human
health and the environment from actual and potential threats
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XII-5
-------
SECTION Xn - APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
at CERCLA sites. Congress recognized that subjecting
CERCLA decision-making to the myriad of overlapping and
potentially disparate administrative requirements of other
Federal and State laws might significantly lengthen response
time. Moreover, CERCLA has its own set of procedures
designed to promote the type of consultation and public
review generally achieved during the permit application
process. These procedures address the remedy selection
process and also provide opportunities for systematic State
and community involvement.
On-Site vs. Off-Site
TYPES OF ARARs
As with actions and requirements, it is important to note
that CERCLA also addresses two types of cleanup locations,
on-site and off-site. According to the NCP, the term
"on-site" means the geographical (or, as the NCP calls it, the
"areal") extent of the contamination and all suitable areas in
very close proximity to the contamination that are necessary
for implementation of the response action. Using this
definition, EPA includes both the surface area and the air
above the site, as well as the hydrogeologic contamination
beneath the surface, including the ground water plume.
This broad definition of "on-site" provides EPA with
flexibility in situations where implementation necessitates
activities that are conducted 'bff-site," or outside of the
waste area itself and/or in areas not contiguous to the site.
Cleanup actions that fall within this definition must meet the
substantive but not the administrative requirements. On the
other hand, response actions carried out off-site are simply
subject to applicable law, including administrative
requirements and any specified procedures for obtaining
permits. For off-site actions, no analysis of relevant and
appropriate requirements is needed and no statutory ARARs
waivers are available.
Any substantive environmental (or State facility-siting)
requirement has the potential to be an ARAR. Due to the
complexity of the universe of such requirements, EPA divides
ARARs into three categories to facilitate identification:
Chemical-specific ARARs usually are either health- or
risk-based numerical values or methodologies that
establish the acceptable amount or concentration of a
chemical that may remain in or be discharged to the
environment. Where more than one requirement
addressing a contaminant is determined to be an ARAR,
the requirement that should be used is the one that is the
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XII-6
-------
TIMING OF COMPLIANCE
POINTS OF COMPLIANCE
SECTION Xn - APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
most stringent. Note, however, that in some cases, a less
stringent requirement is more well-suited to the circumstances
at a site, such that a more stringent requirement will not be
deemed to be relevant and appropriate under the
circumstances.
Location-specific ARARs generally restrict certain
activities or limit concentrations of hazardous substances
solely because of geographical or land use concerns.
Requirements addressing wetlands, historic places,
floodplains, or sensitive ecosystems and habitats are
potential location-specific ARARs.
Action-specific ARARs usually are restrictions on the
conduct of certain activities or the operation of certain
technologies at a particular site. Regulations that dictate
the design, construction, and operating characteristics of
incinerators, air stripping units, or a landfill construction
are examples of action-specific ARARs.
Some ARARs might not fit neatly into any one of these
categories while others may qualify for more than one. Even
if an ARAR does not fall into any such category, it may still be
an ARAR if it meets all the jurisdictional definitions for a
requirement to be an ARAR.
Although CERCLA stipulates only that ARARs must be
met at the completion of the remedial action, the NCP
requires attainment of ARARs during remediation, as well.
During the course of the Remedial Design/Remedial Action
(RD/ RA), the lead agency is responsible for ensuring that all
Federal and State ARARs identified for the action are being
met, unless a waiver has been invoked.
CERCLA provides a number of waivers, including one for
interim actions, as long as the final action attains the waived
standard. If there is doubt about whether an ARAR can be
met during the remedial activity, but no doubt that it will be
met at completion of the remedy, this waiver can be
considered.
Points of compliance for attaining precise remediation
levels are established on a site-specific basis. There are some
general policies for establishing points of compliance. For
ground water, remediation levels should generally be attained
throughout the contaminated plume, or beyond the edge of
the waste management area when waste is left in place, as in
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XII-7
-------
SECTION Xn - APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
ARAR WAIVERS
Interim Measure
Greater Risk to Health and the
Environment
a closed, capped landfill. EPA does acknowledge, however,
that in specific ground water cases, an alternative point of
compliance might be more protective of public health and the
environment. For air, the selected levels should be established
for the maximum exposed individual, considering reasonably
expected use of the site and surrounding area. For surface
waters, the selected levels should be attained at the point, or
points, where the release enters the surface waters.
In certain instances, EPA may choose an on-site cleanup
method which does not meet an ARAR. CERCLA section
121 (d) provides that, under certain circumstances, an ARAR
may be waived. The six statutory waivers are:
Interim Measure
Greater Risk to Health and the Environment
Technical Impracticability
Equivalent Standard of Performance
Inconsistent Application of State Requirements
Fund-Balancing.
These waivers can be used for both remedial and removal
actions, but they apply only to on-site activities and to
compliance with ARARs. A waiver must be invoked for each
ARAR that the remedy will not attain. Other statutory
requirements, such as the one mandating remedies that are
protective of human health and the environment, may not be
waived.
The Interim Measure waiver is for a temporary action
that does not attain all ARARs, but will be followed by
measures that will complete the cleanup and attain all ARARs.
The interim action should neither exacerbate the problems at
the site nor interfere with the final remedy. An Interim
Measure waiver may be useful when a final remedy is divided
into several smaller actions or operable units.
The Greater Risk to Health and the Environment
waiver is for situations in which compliance with an ARAR
would result in greater risk than noncompliance. Before
invoking this waiver, site decision-makers need to consider
the magnitude, duration, and reversibility of adverse impacts
resulting from compliance with such an ARAR, as compared
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XII-8
-------
Technical Impracticability
Equivalent Standard of
Performance
Inconsistent Application of
State Requirements
Fund-Balancing
with the protectiveness of a remedy that is not in compliance.
This waiver can only be invoked for ARARs that would cause
greater risk.
The Technical Impracticability waiver maybe used
when compliance with an ARAR is infeasible from an
engineering perspective. The term "impracticable" means an
unfavorable balance of engineering feasibility and reliability.
Because engineering is ultimately limited by costs, estimated
costs are a legitimatebut not the primaryconsideration in
determining feasibility.
The Equivalent Standard of Performance waiver
maybe invoked when an ARAR can be equaled or exceeded
through an alternate cleanup method, which should achieve
contaminant limitations and demonstrate reliability and
effectiveness as a system. Although this permits flexibility in
choosing a cleanup technology, it must not reduce the
standard of performance or the required level of control.
CERCLA allows the selection of a remedy that does not
comply with a State ARAR when that State has applied that
particular requirement inconsistently. The waiver is designed
to avoid unreasonable restrictions at CERCLA sites if those
State requirements have not been applied to non-CERCLA
sites. Because EPA presumes State standards are applied
consistently, the State does not have to document consistency
unless requested to do so. The invocation of this waiver may
be prompted by variably applied or inconsistently enforced
State standards. A single example of the State's having
chosen or approved a less stringent standard than that
specified in the ARAR may be sufficient justification for the
waiver.
A Fund-Balancing waiver may be applied when the
cost of attaining an ARAR for a solely Trust Fund-financed
action does not represent a reasonable balance between the
availability of Trust Fund monies for remedies at other sites
and the degree of protection anticipated at the site. In other
words, the waiver may be invoked when meeting an ARAR
would entail such cost in relation to the added degree of
protection or reduction of risk that remedial action at other
sites might be jeopardized. However, as with all waivers, the
selected remedy still must comply with the statutory
requirement for protectiveness.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XII-9
-------
It is EPA policy to routinely consider, though not
necessarily to invoke, this waiver when the cost of attaining an
ARAR is four times the national average cost of an operable
unit. For example, the threshold amount in 1991 was
approximately $57.6 million. The waiver may be considered
at funding levels below the threshold, as well.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy xn-10
-------
SECTION XIII
CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
OVERVIEW
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
S How RCRA and CERCLA Overlap
S Imminent Hazards Under RCRA and CERCLA
S How RCRA and CERCLA Differ
S How RCRA Regulations Affect CERCLA Remedy Selection
S RCRA Corrective Action vs. CERCLA Response
OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990 (OPA)
S How OPA and CERCLA Interact
CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)
S How the CWA and CERCLA Interact
CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA)
S How the CAA and CERCLA Interact
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA)
S How the SDWA and CERCLA Interact
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA)
S How TSCA and CERCLA Interact
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM
SAFETY ACT OF 1990 (HMTUSA)
S How HMTUSA and CERCLA Interact
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
SECTION XIH
CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO
OTHER LEGISLATION
OVERVIEW
RESOURCE CONSERVATION
RECOVERY ACT
EPA's role is to protect human health and the
environment. Many environmental laws have been enacted to
address releases, or threats of releases, of hazardous
substances. An understanding of these laws is necessary to
see where CERCLA, or the Superfund program, fits into the
national environmental protection program established by
Congress. Each environmental statute has its own particular
focus, whether it is to control the level of pollutants introduced
into a single environmental medium (i.e., air, soil, water) or to
address a specific area of concern, such as pesticides or
waste management.
The legislation that serves as the basis for managing
hazardous wastes can be divided into three categories:
The central statutory authorities are CERCLA and
RCRA. The former authorizes cleanup of releases of
hazardous substances. The latter creates a management
system for current and future hazardous and solid wastes,
and authorizes cleanup at hazardous waste management
facilities.
Several statutes are media-specific and limit the amount
of wastes introduced into the air, waterways, oceans, and
drinking water.
Other statutes directly limit the production of chemical
substances and products that may contribute to the
nation's waste.
The remainder of this section summarizes each statute and
highlights its interaction with the Superfund program.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act AND
(RCRA), an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
was enacted in 1976 to address a problem of enormous
magnitudehow to safely dispose of the huge volumes of
hazardous and non-hazardous municipal and industrial waste
generated nationwide and to ensure the prevention of future
releases. The term "solid waste," by definition, includes
traditional
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIII-1
-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
RCRA's Four Interrelated Programs
Subtitle D Subtitle C Subtitle I Subtitle J
Solid Hazardous Underground Medical
Waste Waste Storage Tank Waste
Program Program Program Program
non-hazardous wastes such as municipal refuse and liquid,
semi-solid, or gaseous material from industrial, commercial,
and mining operations, as well as hazardous waste.
The goals set by RCRA are:
To protect human health and the environment
To reduce waste, and conserve energy and natural
resources
To reduce or eliminate the generation of hazardous waste
as expeditiously as possible.
RCRA originally provided regulatory authority to address
hazardous waste management, but had limited authority to
require cleanup. CERCLA was enacted in 1980 to fill the
apparent gap in RCRA and the Clean Water Act authority for
remedying past mismanagement of hazardous substances.
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) significantly expanded the scope and requirements
of RCRA. Regulations have been developed and continue to
be expanded based on the HSWA provisions, e.g., Land
Disposal Restrictions. In addition, HSWA expanded EPA's
authorities to address releases of hazardous waste or
hazardous constituents through "corrective actions" or cleanup
of wastes released from RCRA hazardous waste facilities.
Furthermore, a new program for regulating underground
storage tanks was developed under RCRA Subtitle I.
RCRA establishes four distinct, yet interrelated,
regulatory programs:
The Subtitle D Solid Waste Management Program
sets national standards for the management of solid waste
(e.g., municipal solid waste landfills)
The Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Management
Program sets national standards for hazardous waste
management, provides for oversight of State
implementation of RCRA, and includes corrective action
authorities to address releases to the environment
The Subtitle I Underground Storage Tank (LIST)
Program is designed to protect ground water from
leaking underground storage tanks
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIII-2
-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
How RCRA and CERCLA
Overlap
The Subtitle J Medical Waste Program establishes a
two-year demonstration program to track medical waste
from generation to disposal.
CERCLA is most impacted by RCRA Subtitle C. The RCRA
Subtitle C standards for managing hazardous waste affect
many CERCLA response decisions, such as which off-site
disposal facility to use or which regulatory requirements to
consider in implementing on-site response actions.
RCRA and CERCLA follow roughly parallel procedures
in responding to releases. In both, the first step after
discovery of a release is an examination of available data to
see if an emergency action is warranted. Both programs allow
for short-term measures to abate the immediate adverse
effects of a release. In RCRA, short-term measures may
occur after the investigations. Investigations and formal study
of long-term cleanup options are conducted once an
emergency has been addressed. When these analyses are
completed, both provide the basis for the formal selection of
a remedy.
RCRA regulatory requirements are potentially applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for
CERCLA response actions. Thus, many CERCLA response
actions must meet the applicable or relevant and appropriate
RCRA requirements for on-site actions, unless a waiver is
justified under the circumstances. For example, the RCRA
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs), established under
HSWA, maybe applicable to a CERCLA response action
involving the placement of hazardous waste in a land disposal
unit. In order to determine their applicability, EPA has issued
a series of Superfund LDR Guides (LDR Guides 1 -8). These
guides summarize the major components of the LDRs, such
as treatment standards and minimum technical requirements
in respect to CERCLA response actions.
In accordance with CERCLA section 121(d)(3) all
wastes shipped off-site for treatment, storage, or disposal
must be sent to facilities that have been determined by EPA
to be "acceptable." In order to be acceptable, a facility cannot
have any relevant violations of applicable Federal or State
requirements such as RCRA or TSCA and cannot have any
relevant releases.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIII-3
-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
Imminent Hazards Under RCRA
andCERCLA
How RCRA and CERCLA Differ
How RCRA Regulations Affect
CERCLA Remedy Selection
Both CERCLA and RCRA contain provisions that allow
EPA to require persons contributing to an imminent hazard
to take the necessary actions to clean up releases. Under
CERCLA section 106, EPA has the authority to abate an
imminent or substantial danger to public health or the
environment that results from a hazardous substance release.
The authority under RCRA section 7003 is essentially the
same, except that RCRA's imminent hazard provision
addresses non-hazardous as well as hazardous solid waste
releases. In an enforcement action, the CERCLA and RCRA
imminent hazard provisions may be used in tandem.
RCRA and CERCLA have the common goal to protect
human health and the environment from the dangers of
hazardous waste. However, as illustrated in Exhibit 7, these
statutes address the hazardous waste problem from two
fundamentally different approaches:
RCRA has a largely regulatory approach. RCRA
regulates the management of wastes from the moment of
generation until final disposal, and provides some
corrective action authority for investigating and cleaning
up contamination at or from RCRA Subtitle C facilities.
CERCLA has a response approach. CERCLA
authorizes cleanup actions whenever there has been a
breakdown in the waste management system (i.e., a
threatening release of a hazardous substance occurs).
Also, CERCLA addresses the problems of hazardous
waste encountered at inactive or abandoned sites or
those resulting from spills that require emergency
response.
In assessing cleanup remedies, EPA takes into account the
long-term uncertainties associated with land disposal, long-
term maintenance costs, and other considerations.
CERCLA requires that on-site remedies attain any
substantive requirements, standards, criteria, or limitations
under Federal or more stringent State environmental laws,
including RCRA, that are determined to be ARARs (unless
site-specific waivers are obtained). Furthermore, the NCP
provides that removal actions attain ARARs whenever
practicable. This means, for example, that whenever a
remedial action involves on-site treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous waste, the action must meet RCRA's
technical standards for treatment, storage, or disposal. EPA
interprets
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIII-4
-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
Exhibit 7
RCRA and CERCLA: Different Approaches to a Common Goal
Protection of Human Health and
the Environment from the Release of
Hazardous Substances
RCRA
Regulatory Program Ensuring
Safe Management of
Hazardous Waste and Non-
Hazardous Waste Including
Corrective Action Program to
Investigate and Clean up
Contamination From Subtitle
C Facilities
CERCLA
Response Program to Clean
up Hazardous Substance
Releases
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIII-5
-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
CERCLA to mean that Superfund sites are not required to
comply with administrative requirements (e.g., recordkeeping
and permits), but that RCRA technical requirements may
apply as ARARs. The National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), the blueprint
for the Superfund program, details the application of ARARs
to Superfund remedial actions cited in section 300.435(b)(2).
As noted earlier, once hazardous substances,
contaminants, or pollutants are transported from a Superfund
site, they are subject to CERCLA's off-site requirement that
they go to a facility that EPA has determined acceptable to
receive CERCLA wastes. CERCLA wastes that are RCRA
hazardous wastes must go to a Subtitle C facility acceptable
under the CERCLA off-site policy. Each Regional office has
an off-site contact who makes the acceptability determination
prior to each offsite shipment of CERCLA wastes.
Finally, as of October 1989, EPA may not take or fund
remedial actions in a State unless the State ensures the
availability of hazardous waste treatment and disposal
capacity. This hazardous waste capacity must be adequate to
manage the wastes generated in the State for a period of 20
years and for facilities that are in compliance with RCRA
Subtitle C requirements.
RCRA Corrective Actions vs. RCRA authorizes EPA to require corrective action (usually
CERCLA Response under an enforcement order or as part of a permit action)
whenever there is, or has been, a release of hazardous waste
or constituents. Further, RCRA allows EPA to require
corrective action beyond the facility boundary. EPA interprets
the term "corrective action" to cover the full range of possible
actions, from investigations, studies, and interim measures to
full cleanups. Anyone who violates the corrective action order
can be fined up to $25,000 per day of noncompliance and
runs the risk of having their operating permit suspended or
revoked.
The general distinction between RCRA and CERCLA is
as follows: RCRA focuses on waste management and
corrective action, while CERCLA focuses on cleanup
activities. However, the two programs overlap. For example,
RCRA standards are considered ARARs and are central to
selecting remedies under CERCLA. Moreover, the RCRA
corrective action and the CERCLA response action programs
use parallel (but not identical) procedures.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIII-6
-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990
OPA Provisions
Expanded Federal Role
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
Contingency Planning
Increased Liability and Civil Penalties
Double Hulls
Research and Development
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) amends section
311 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 311 prohibits
the discharge of oil and certain hazardous substances in
quantities that may be harmful to public health or welfare
(OPA revised this to include the environment). OPA
established the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to pay for
Federal responses to oil spills. Section 311 also authorizes the
Oil Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC)
program.
OPA is a comprehensive statute designed to: (1) expand
the Federal role in response activities; (2) increase trust funds
available for cleanup costs and other damages; (3) improve
preparedness and response capabilities of Federal agencies
and owners or operators of vessels and facilities; (4) ensure
that responsible parties pay for damages from spills that do
occur (subject to liability limits); (5) increase vessel safety
through requirements for double hulls; and (6) establish an
expanded oil pollution research and development effort.
Some of the most significant provisions of OPA include
the following:
Expanded Federal Role in Response Under
revised section 311(c) of the CWA, the Federal
government is required to direct responses to releases
that pose a substantial threat to the public health or
welfare, and has the discretion to direct responses to any
discharges threatening public health or welfare.
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund OPA creates a new
$ 1 billion trust fund that is available for cleanup costs and
other damages. The USCG administers the fund, which
is used to pay for removal costs and damages resulting
from an oil discharge. Fund monies are supplied by a
five-cent per-barrel fee on oil.
Contingency Planning New section 311(j) of the
CWA requires EPA and the USCG to enhance the
existing National Response System by designating Area
Committees to develop Area Contingency Plans to help
ensure among other things the removal of a worst-case
spill from a vessel or facility in or near the area covered
by each area plan. Also, OPA added a new requirement
in CWA section 311(j) that owners or operators of
individual vessels and facilities (except onshore facilities
that are not expected to cause substantial environmental
harm from
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIII-7
-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
oil discharges) prepare response plans for worst-case oil
and hazardous substances discharges. The statute also
requires amendments to the NCP, including development
of a Fish and Wildlife Plan.
How OPA and CERCLA Interact
Increased Liability for Spills OPA increases the
liability of tanker owners and operators, responsible
parties at onshore facilities and deepwater ports, and
holders of leases or permits for offshore facilities in the
event of a spill. OPA broadens liability to cover not only
removal costs and natural resource damages, but also the
provision of spill-related health and safety services by
State and local governments and losses of private
property, revenues, subsistence use and profits.
Double Hulls Under OPA, newly constructed
tankers over certain size limits must have double hulls or
other double containment systems. Existing tankers
without double hulls are to be phased out by size, age,
and design beginning in 1995. Tankers over certain size
limits without double hulls are banned after 2015.
Research and Development OPA mandates the
establishment of an interagency committee to coordinate
efforts to improve oil spill response technology.
Primary Federal responsibility for implementing OPA
rests with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and EPA.
The USCG is responsible for administering the trust fund,
responding to coastal spills, reviewing contingency plans for
vessels and transportation-related facilities, and coordinating
research and development efforts along with other
requirements. EPA's responsibilities include reviewing
contingency plans for certain onshore facilities, responding to
discharges occuring in the inland zone, and revising the NCP.
As with the Superfund program, the NCP serves as the
regulatory blueprint that guides Federal response to oil spills.
OPA amends the CWA and includes a number of
provisions regarding the prevention, control, and response to
spills or threats of spills into U.S. waters from oil and CWA
hazardous substances. The NCP provides the framework for
CERCLA and CWA section 311 responses. CWA section
311
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIII-8
-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
CLEAN WATER ACT
requires facilities storing oil and CWA hazardous substances
to develop contingency plans, and to penalize facilities for
non-compliance. CWA section 311(b) authorizes more
stringent penalties for unauthorized spills of oil and/or
hazardous substances and violations ofthe regulations. OPA
provides that liability includes the cost of the response and
damages to natural resources, property, and subsistence use
of natural resources. These provisions are independent of
CERCLA.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted to regulate
and cleanup polluted waters in the United States. It is
designed to ensure that the nation's waters are safe to the
public and support fish and other aquatic life. Specifically, the
CWA is designed to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity ofthe nation's waters.
The CWA was one of the major environmental laws
passed by Congress in the 1970s. It provides EPA with two
types of authority:
Regulatory to prevent and control discharges of
pollutants into waters ofthe U.S.
Response to respond to releases of pollutants into
waters ofthe U.S. Prior to CERCLA, EPA and USCG
worked under the CWA to clean up releases of oil and
hazardous substances into the navigable waters of the
U.S.
The previous section on the OPA describes the authorities
and provisions of CWA section 311. This section describes
some ofthe major authorities and provisions ofthe other
sections ofthe CWA.
The CWA requires that all direct discharges to surface
water comply with technology-based discharge standards.
These standards require the use of best practicable control
technology (BPCT) for conventional pollutants (e.g.,
suspended solids, fecal coliform) and best available
technology economically achievable (BAT) for toxic (e.g.,
benzene, chloroform) and non-conventional (e.g., ammonia,
nitrogen, total solids) pollutants. EPA has published effluent
guidelines for specific categories of industries. These
guidelines are translated into specific effluent requirements in
discharge permits.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIII-9
-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
How the CWA and CERCLA
Interact
The CWA requires a permit for any discharge into the
nation's waterways. For waste water, only two discharge
options are allowed:
Direct discharge into surface water pursuant to a
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit
Indirect discharge., which means that the waste water is
first sent to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW),
and then after treatment by the POTW, discharged into
surface water pursuant to an NPDES permit.
The NPDES permit is granted on a case-by-case basis and
the terms of the permit depend on a number of variables.
Essentially, the NPDES permit limits the permissible
concentration of toxic constituents or conventional pollutants
in effluents discharged to a waterway.
If the indirect discharge option is chosen, the generator of
the waste water cannot simply transfer the pollutants to a
POTW. Rather, the waste water must satisfy applicable
pretreatment standards, where they exist.
Section 304 of the CWA directs EPA to publish water
quality criteria for specific pollutants. EPA develops two
types of criteria: one for the protection of human health and
another for protection of aquatic life. EPA has published a
total of 82 water quality criteria. These criteria are non-
enforceable guidelines used by States to set water quality
standards for surface water. Section 303 requires States to
develop water quality standards, based on Federal water
quality criteria, to protect existing or attainable uses (e.g.,
recreation, water supply) of surface waters.
The CWA-designated hazardous substances are
incorporated into the CERCLA definition of hazardous
substances. The CWA section has authority for
responding to discharges of oil into the waters of the U.S..
The CWA section 311 and CERCLA have similar response
authorities for responding to discharges of CWA hazardous
substances released into U.S. waters. In addition, CERCLA
provides response authority for responding to discharges of
other hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants into
the environment. The NCP, the blueprint for managing
responses
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIII-10
-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
CLEAN AIR ACT
to releases, governs both CWA and CERCLA responses.
The previous section on OPA provides a more detailed
discussion of how CWA section 311 and CERCLA interact.
On-site CERCLA responses must comply with or waive
substantive requirements of Federal and State environmental
laws that are determined to be ARARs. CWA and State
discharge and water quality standards may be ARARs for
onsite remedial actions at Superfund sites. The application of
CWA and State ARARs is determined on a case-by-case
basis. CERCLA responses conducted entirely on-site do not
require CWA permits.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) was the first major
environmental law passed by Congress. The CAA was
enacted to limit the emission of pollutants into the atmosphere
to protect human health and the environment from the effects
of airborne pollution. The CAA authorizes EPA to achieve
this objective by setting air quality standards and regulating
emissions of pollutants into the air. EPA has established
emission standards for mobile (e.g., automobiles) and
stationary (e.g., factories) sources of pollutant emission.
These are implemented through Federal, State, and local
programs.
For six pollutants, EPA has established National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Regulation of these six
pollutants affords the public some protection from toxic air
pollutants. Primary responsibility for meeting the requirements
of the CAA rests with States, who must submit State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to achieve and maintain the
NAAQS. Pursuant to the SIP, new or modified stationary
sources of air emissions must undergo pre-construction
review to determine whether the facility will interfere with
attainment or maintenance of NAAQS. In addition, in some
areas that do not attain NAAQS, SIPs must contain
regulatory strategies to control emissions from existing
stationary sources. SIPs, not NAAQS, are potential ARARs.
Of chief concern to Superfund are the requirements that apply
to sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other
toxic air pollutants (e.g., heavy metals).
Section 112 of the CAA directs EPA to identify hazardous
air pollutants and to establish emission standards for
sources that emit the pollutants. These standards, known as
National
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIII-11
-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
How the CAA and CERCLA
Interact
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS), apply to new as well as existing sources.
Additionally, under section 112(r), the accidental release
provisions of the CAA, facilities are required to provide
information on the ways they manage risk posed by certain
substances listed by EPA and indicate what they are doing to
minimize risk to the community from those chemicals.
The CAA and CERCLA interact in the following two
ways:
The CAA hazardous air pollutants are included as
CERCLA hazardous substances
CAA emissions limitations provide substantive standards
for CERCLA responses.
CERCLA provides Federal response authority to address
releases of air pollutants that threaten human health or the
environment. CAA requirements may apply to CERCLA
responses.
The accidental release provisions of CAA requires the
establishment of a list of at least 100 regulated substances and
thresholds under section 112. Sixteen of these substances
were identified in the CAA for inclusion on the list. The rest
of the list maybe drawn from, but not necessarily limited to,
the list of extremely hazardous substances under SARA Title
III.
CAA hazardous air pollutants, identified under section
112, are CERCLA hazardous substances by definition. Other
CAA air pollutants, identified under sections 109 and 111,
are not covered by the CERCLA definition of hazardous
substances but may be covered by the CERCLA definition of
"pollutant or contaminant."
CAA emissions limitations provide substantive standards
for CERCLA responses in two ways. CAA emissions
limitations provide triggers for Superfund action (i.e., if
baseline conditions (pre-cleanup) exceed air standards, action
may be warranted). And, these limitations provide cleanup
standards to attain in addressing unremediated conditions, and
emission standards for certain cleanup technologies
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIII-12
-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
employed. CAA emission standards may be ARARs for
onsite response actions at Superfund sites. The application
of CAA standards as ARARs is determined on a
case-by-case basis.
CERCLA responses need not comply with CAA
permit requirements.
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was enacted
in 1974 to protect human health by protecting the quality of
the nation's drinking water supply. It protects drinking water
sources by regulating facilities or systems that inject fluids into
the ground, and protects public drinking water consumers by
regulating the quality of water distributed by public water
systems. These goals are achieved by authorizing the
establishment of:
Drinking water standards
A permit program for the underground inj ection of wastes
Resource planning programs.
Both surface and underground public drinking water sources
are thereby protected by the SDWA.
The SDWA imposes requirements on persons who own
or operate a system which has at least 15 service connections
or 25 consumers, and provides piped water for human
consumption. The regulations which implement these
requirements are entitled the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWR). All water suppliers must periodically
sample the water delivered to users and record and report
their findings to EPA or the State, whichever is appropriate.
The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program
protects underground sources of drinking water from
contamination by injection of waters or wastes into injection
wells. A permit program limits substances that may be
injected and how they may be injected.
EPA currently administers the SDWA public water
system program in only two states, Indiana and Wyoming. In
all other states, EPA oversees State implementation, but
retains independent enforcement authority.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIII-13
-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
How the SDWA and CERCLA
Interact
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL ACT
Provisions of the SDWA apply to CERCLA site
discharges to public drinking water sources. SDWA
provisions such as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
may be applicable to CERCLA cleanup of water that may be
used for drinking.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), signed
into law in October 1976, provides EPA with broad authority
to regulate chemicals and chemical substances whose
manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use or
disposal may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment. TSCA was enacted to keep harmful
chemicals out of the environment and to fill the gaps in existing
environmental laws in the areas of toxic substances.
TSCA deals with all chemical substances planned for
production, produced, imported, or exported from the
country. TSCA applies primarily to manufacturers,
distributors, processors, and importers of chemicals. TSCA
provides authorities to control the manufacture and sale of
certain chemical substances. These authorities include
Testing of chemicals currently in commercial production
or use
Pre-market screening and regulatory tracking of new
chemical products
Controlling unreasonable risks once a chemical
substance is determined to have an adverse effect on
health or the environment. These powers include:
Prohibiting the manufacture or certain uses of the
chemical
Requiring labeling with specific markings or
warnings
Limiting volume of production or concentration
Requiring recordkeeping about production
Requiring replacement or re-purchase of products
Controlling disposal methods.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIII-14
-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
How TSCA and CERCLA Interact
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL ACT
How HMTUS and CERCLA
Interact
The only exceptions to these authorities are pesticides (which
are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act), tobacco or tobacco products, source
material by-products or special nuclear material (as defined
by the Atomic Energy Act), and food, food additives, drugs,
and cosmetics (regulated under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act).
TSCA and CERCLA commonly interact if
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are involved in a CERCLA
response. PCB disposal regulations under TSCA may apply,
as ARARs, at Superfund sites. PCBs are the only chemical
identified by Congress by name for direct regulation under
TSCA. TSCA regulations of other chemicals may also
present possible ARARs, depending on the type of hazardous
substances at a Superfund site.
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety
Act of 1990 (HMTUSA), section 117, evolved from the
emergency preparedness proposal developed by DOT,
FEMA, EPA, DOL, and DOE, and presented to the
Congress during the legislative process to reauthorize the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975. The
requirements of the HMTUSA were designed to allow the
federal government or provide national direction and guidance
to enhance hazardous materials emergency preparedness
activities at the State and local levels. This will be
accomplished by ensuring comprehensive, integrated, and
coordinated planning, training, and technical assistance
programs. Section 117, "Public Sector Training and
Planning," was specifically crafted to build upon and enhance
the existing framework and working relationships established
within CERCLA/Superfund for the National Response Team
(NRT), Regional Response Teams (RRTs), and the Title HI
State Emergency Response Commission.
HMTUSA builds on existing programs and relationships
and, in fact, specifically requires grant money to be submitted
to LEPCs as established under SARA Title HI. Specifically,
HMTUSA provides for:
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIII-15
-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
(1) Planning grants ($5 million per year from 1993 through
1998) to develop, improve, and implement SARA Title
m local emergency response plans and to determine the
need for regional hazardous materials emergency
response teams.
States will receive these grants by agreeing to submit at
least 75% of their planning grants money directly to LEPCs
to develop, improve, and implement their emergency plans.
(2) Training grants ($7.8 million per year from 1993 through
1998) for delivery of training to public sector employees
in hazardous materials response. This grant could be used
for hazardous material waste and emergency response
and other training activities, However, in order to qualify
for the training grants, States/Tribes must certify they are
in compliance with section 301 and 303 of SARA Title
III.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIII-16
-------
SECTION XIV
FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
SUPERFUND ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
SECTION XIV
FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF THE
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
During the first ten years of the Superfund program, EPA
successfully developed a program that brought the United
States to a new level of understanding about hazardous
substances and how they can be treated. The Superfund
program is comprehensive, yet flexible and innovative. Its
missionis both immediate and long-range. Its focus is specific
enough to handle individual site cleanups with precision, yet
broad enough to encourage advances in a relatively new
scientific and technical field.
Superfund already has resulted in permanent solutions to
many hazardous waste problems. However, after the first 10
years of experience, it is apparent to Superfund program
participants that the program faces a workload stretching well
into the next century. The hazardous waste problem in the
United States remains large, complex, and long-term.
EPA is looking ahead to proj ect a program for the future.
Long-term planning is important because, for example, EPA
estimates indicate that the cleanup of sites on the NPL, as of
1991, is expected to cost an additional $19 billion beyond the
amount already obligated. Also, EPA expects the number of
NPL sites to grow from 1,200 to 2,000 by the end of the
century.
"Superfund 2000" represents EPA's strategy for
responding to long-term needs. As part of this concept, EPA
is conducting studies of the possible universe of sites to be
cleaned up by Superfund or other parties. One study involves
the development of a liability model to help estimate possible
future cleanup costs under different scenarios. EPA also is
looking at past remedy selection decisions and evaluating
patterns that may indicate future useful technologies. In
addition, opportunities for greater program integration,
particularly between the Superfund and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) programs, are
being assessed.
In keeping with EPA's goal of increasing multimedia
enforcement efforts, EPA is examining the future role of
responsible parties and State and local governments in the
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIV-1
-------
SECTION XIV - FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
Superfund program. All these studies and activities will ensure
that an integrated, practical, viable, and results-oriented
Superfund program will continue to evolve.
SUPERFUND ACCELERATED In February of 1992, the EPA Administrator signed a
CLEANUP MODEL plan aimed at moving sites more quickly through the
Superfund process to cleanup and redefining the way
progress is measured. This new plan, called the Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), is designed to
include substantial, prioritized risk reduction in shorter time
frames and better communication of program
accomplishments to the public.
As outlined in this manual, the current system for
Superfund cleanups is based on two discrete programs
removal and remedial. Under SACM, this distinction would
be retained, but EPA would view both removal and remedial
actions as Superfund actions. Rather than viewing these two
entities as separate programs, they are viewed as separate
legal authorities with different, but complementary, application
at Superfund sites.
An integral part of SACM is the combined site
assessment. The single site assessment function would
address, in a coordinated fashion, requirements for removal
assessments, preliminary assessments / site inspections
(PA/SIs), remedial investigations/feasibility studies (RI/FSs),
and risk assessments. Discovered sites could be screened
once and, if they are considered to have a serious level of
contamination, go directly to the remedial investigation and
risk assessment phases of cleanup. Such a change could cut
the current process by several years.
During the assessment process, a Regional Decision
Team would decide to place a site on either an "Early
Action List" or a "Long Term Remediation List" or
both. Early Actions are short-term, quickly implemented
cleanups that would be completed in three to five years. Early
Actions will include time-critical and non-time-critical
removal activities, as well as remedial actions, and will be
designed to address all short-term threats to public health and
safety. Under SACM, such actions would be combined
immediately with public participation and expedited
enforcement actions. Long Term Remediation sites would
only include sites requiring cleanup over many years (e.g.,
ground water restoration, sites involving property acquisition,
long-term operation and maintenance,
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIV-2
-------
SECTION XIV - FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
or mining sites, extended incineration projects, and
wetlands/estuaries).
SACM introduces the concept of Regional Decision
Teams that would combine the cross-programmatic skills and
experience of On-Scene Coordinators, Remedial Project
Managers, Office of Regional Counsel attorneys, site and risk
assessors, and Community Relations Coordinators. As
explained above, the Regional Decision Team would be
responsible for expediting sites onto the Early Action List and
scoring long-term restoration actions for inclusion on the
NPL.
A key obj ective of SACM is to count the totality of risk
reduction rather than focus on NPL site deletions. This
would be a fundamentally new way for the Superfund
program to measure its success, and would show the public
how Superfund is achieving appropriate cleanup at a large
number of sites.
Regional pilot tests are underway. The model is being
further refined, and EPA is developing protocols and
guidance that will expedite the implementation of SACM. The
steps for the new Superfund process are illustrated in Exhibit
EPA is proud of its hard-won accomplishments in the
Superfund program, and will continue to use new
management and technological approaches to significantly
improve human health and the environment, accelerate the
pace of cleanup, expand its efficiency and activity, improve
the quality of the program over time, and build public
confidence. There are no miracle cures for the hazardous
waste problem, but EPA has a clear strategy for meeting this
challenge.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIV-3
-------
SECTION XIV - FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
Exhibit 8
The SACM Process
I
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy XIV4
-------
APPENDIX A
RESOURCE FOR SUPERFUND
PROGRAM PUBLICATIONS
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
APPENDIX A
RESOURCE FOR SUPERFUND PROGRAM PUBLICATIONS
S52T
Compendium of Superfund
Program Publications
Compendium of Superfund Program
Publications - 1992
EPA/OERR
EPA/540/8-91/014
Publication 9200.7-02B
November 1991
The Compendium is the single most complete source of
information produced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) on Superfund. The publications and computerized data listed
in the Compendium come from many program offices. Chief among
them is the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(OERR). Other EPA offices which produced documents listed in the Compendium include the:
Technology Innovation Office (TIO)
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
Office of Research and Development (ORD).
The Superfund program has endeavored to place the entire historical collection, as well as all new
documents, in the Compendium. Documents related to enforcement of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) are also included, because many enforcement actions combine aspects of RCRA
and Superfund.
The Compendium includes the following information in each abstract:
Document title
Publication date
Icon showing the type of document (e.g. fact sheet, directive, publication, or computer
material)
Originating office
Document length
Brief summary of document contents
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy A-l
-------
Agency control numbers
NTIS order number
NTIS price code.
For those unfamiliar with the Superfund program, wherever possible, plain English has been substituted for
program jargon and acronyms. Also, the Compendium includes a subject index, title index, and numerical
indexes. For users with Superfund expertise, the summaries in the abstracts section have been organized
under 10 large categories and further organized into specific subcategories.
The Compendium may be obtained free of charge from the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS): 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 487-4650.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
EPA ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
APPENDIX B
EPA ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Staff Offices:
Administrative Law Judges
Civil Rights
Small & Disadvantage^ Business Utilization
Science Advisory Board
Executive Support
Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
_L
Assistant Administrator
for Administration and
Resources Management
Assistant
Administrator for
Enforcement
General
Counsel
Regional Operations and
State/Local Relations
Congressional and Legislative
Affairs
Communications and Public Affairs
Assistant
Administrator for
Policy, Planning and
Evaluation
Assistant
Administrator for
International
Activities
Inspector
General
Olfica of the
ComptroHar
Office of
Administration
Office of Information
Resources
Management
Office of Human
Resources
Management
Office of Administration
& Resource
Management RTP.NC
Office of Administration
& Resource
Management
Cincinnati, OH
Office of Criminal
Enforcement
Office of Compliance
Analysis and Program
Operations
Office of CM
Enforcement
Office of Federal
Activities
National Enforcement
Investigations Center
(NEIC) Denver. CO
Office of Federal
Facilities
Enforcement
Air and Radiation
Division
Grants, Contracts and
General Law Division
Inspector General
Division
Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
Division
Solid Waste and
Emergency
Response Division
Water Division
Assistant Administrator
for Water
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
«-
_
~~
**.
**+*«
Office of Emergency
and Remedial
Response (Superfund)
Office of Solid
Waste
Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement
Office of Underground
Storage Tanks
Chemical Emergency ;
Preparedness and
Prevention Office
Technology
Innovation Office
Superfund
Revitalization Team
Assistant
Administrator for
Air and Radiation
Office of Program
Management
Operations
Office of Policy
Analysis and Review
Office of Atmospheric
and Indoor Air
Programs
Office of Air Quality
Planning and
Standards RTP, NC
Office of Mobile
Sources
Office of Radiation
Programs
Assistant Administrator
for Research and
Development
«
Office of Research
Program
Management
Office of Technology
Transfer and
Regulatory Support
Office of Exploratory
Research
Ollicfl of Environmental
Engineering and Technology
Demonstialion
Office of Health
Research
Office of Environmental
Processes and Effects
Research
Office of Health and
Environmental
Assessment
Office of Modeling.
Monitorinq Systems
and Quality Assurance
Region I
Boston
Region II
New York
Region III
Philadelphia
Region IV
Atlanta
Region V
Chicago
Region VI
Dallas
Region VII
Kansas City
Region VIII
Denver
Region IX
San Francisco
Region X
Seattle
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy B-l
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (OSWER)
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Qtaff nfftroe-
Resource Management and Information Staff
Policy Analysis and Regulatory Management Staff
Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Ernerciency Response
Chemical Emsroency Preparedness & Prevention Office
Superfund Revitalization Team
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response I
Office of
Solid Waste
Office of
Underground
Storage Tanks
Off ice of
Waste Programs
Enforcement
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy B-2
-------
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART AND ROLES
Office of
Program
Management
Conduct cross-
cutting
contract and
policy analysis
Administer Head-
quarters policy,
technical, and
support contracts
Perform strategic
planning
Develop and
administer systems
Automated Data
Processing (ADP)
Perform budget and
forecasting activities
Support and review
regional contractual
practices
Prepare, implement
and evaluate quality
objectives
Director
Deputy
Hazardous
Site
Evaluation
Division
Prepare strategy
and guidance for
site discovery,
inventory, and
inspections
Prepare guidance
for PA/SI
activities
and Federal site
evaluations
Manage site
discovery activities
Manage the
CERCLIS inventory
process
Coordinate ATSDR
petitions with HHS
Develop analytical
protocols, MRS
policies,
policies
Develop
and
NPL
assess-
ment guidance and
evaluation policies
and procedures for
managing health
risks
Manage
the
PA
petition process
Director
Hazardous Site
Control
Division
Manage the Super-
fund remedial
program
Coordinate Regions'
work
Develop
technica
policy and
guidance
on all aspects of the
remedial
Maintain
program
liaison with
outside organiza-
tions representing
State governments
and Indian Tribes
Emergency
Response
Division
Coordinate the
national
program for
dealing with oil
spills and releases
of hazardous
substances
Develop the policies
and guidance for
removal
actions
Organize the
resources,
contracts,
and management
support the Regions
need to conduct
removal
actions
Provide on-scene
technical assistance
and training to
Regional removal
response personnel
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy B-3
-------
APPENDIX C
EPA REGIONAL OFFICE DIRECTORY
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
APPENDIX C
EPA REGIONAL OFFICE DIRECTORY
Region 1
Environment Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
One Congress Street
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3420
Region 6
Environment Protection Agency
First Interstate Bank Tower at Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue, 12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214)655-6444
Environmental Services Division
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
(617) 860-4300
Region 2
Environmental Protection Agency
Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212)264-2657
Environmental Service Division
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Raritan Depot Building 10
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
(908)321-6754
Region 3
Environmental Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)597-9800
Region 4
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-4727
Region 5
Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)886-9851
Environmental Service Division
Houston Branch Office
10625 Fallstone Road
Houston, TX 7099
(713) 983-2200
Region 7
Environmental Protection Agency
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7000
Environmental Services Division
25 Funston Road
Kansas City, KS 66115
(913)551-5000
Region 8
Environmental Protection Agency
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303)293-1603
Region 9
Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-1305
Region 10
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)553-4973
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy C-l
-------
States by EPA Region
Boston
'ork
Region
Region
4 -
10 -
9 -
6 -
9 -
8 -
1 -
3 -
3 -
4 -
4 -
9 -
10 -
5 _
5 _
7 _
7 -
ij,
6 -
1 -
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
3
1
5
5
4
7
8
7
9
1
2
6
2
4
8
5
6
10
3
1
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Region
4
8
4
6
8
I
3
10
3
5
8
9
9
2
2
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy C-2
-------
APPENDIX D
CERCLA/SUPERFUND PROGRAM ACRONYMS
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
APPENDIX D
CERCLA/SUPERFUND PROGRAM ACRONYMS
AA Assistant Administrator
AO Administrative Order
AOC Administrative Order on Consent
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
ARCS Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
ATTIC Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center
BAT Best Available Technology
BCT Best Control Technology
CA Cooperative Agreement
CAA Clean Air Act
CD Consent Decree
CED CERCLA Enforcement Division
CEPP Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
CERI Center for Environmental Research Information
CLP (National) Contract Laboratory Program
CR Community Relations
CRC Community Relations Coordinator
CRP Community Relations Plan
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy D-l
-------
CWA
Clean Water Act
DO Delivery Order
DQO Data Quality Objective
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Preparedness and Community Right-to-Know Act
ERCS Emergency Response Cleanup Services
ERD Emergency Response Division
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
ERT Emergency Response Team
ESAT Environmental Services Assistance Team
ESD Explanation of Significant Differences
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Insecticide, and Rodenticide Act
FIT Field Investigation Team
FS Feasibility Study
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act
HHS (Department of) Health and Human Services
HRS Hazard Ranking System
HSCD Hazardous Site Control Division
HSED Hazardous Site Evaluation Division
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
IAG Interagency Agreement
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
LDR Land Disposal Restrictions
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy D-2
-------
LEPC
Local Emergency Planning Committee
LGR Local Government Reimbursement
LSI Listing Site Investigation
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
MO A Memorandum of Agreement
MOTJ Memorandum of Understanding
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAWQC National Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NESHAPs National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
NPL National Priorities List
NRC National Response Center
NRT National Response Team
NTIS National Technical Information Service
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OARM Office of Administration and Resources Management
OE Office of Enforcement
OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
OGC Office of General Counsel
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy D-3
-------
OIRM
Office of Information Resources Management
OPA
ORC
ORD
ORO
OSC
OSW
Oil Pollution Act of 1990
Office of Regional Counsel
Office of Research and Development
Office of Regional Operations
On-Scene Coordinator
Office of Solid Waste
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OU Operable Unit
OWPE Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PA Preliminary Assessment
PA/Si Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
POLREP Pollution Report
POTW Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
PP Proposed Plan
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
QA Quality Assurance
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
R&D Research and Development
RA Remedial Action
RA Regional Administrator
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy D-4
-------
RAC Response Action Contractor
RC Regional Counsel
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial Design
REAP Regional Enforcement Activities Plan
RI Remedial Investigation
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RMCL Recommended Maximum Contaminant Levels
ROD Records of Decision
RODS Records of Decision System
RP Responsible Party
RPM Remedial Project Manager
RPO Regional Project Officer
RQ Reportable Quantity
RRC Regional Response Center
RRT Regional Response Team
RSE Removal Site Evaluation
SACM Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SCAP Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SEA Site Evaluation Accomplished
SERC State Emergency Response Commission
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy D-5
-------
SI Site Inspection
SIP State Implementation Plan
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (Program)
SITS Site Investigation Tracking System
SMOA Superfund Memorandum of Agreement
SOW Statement of Work
SPCC Spill Prevention Control Countermeasures
SSC Superfund State Contract
SSI Screening Site Investigation
TAG Technical Assistance Grant
TAT Technical Assistance Team
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TQM Total Quality Management
TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act
TSD Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
UAO Unilateral Administrative Order
UIC Underground Injection Control
USCG U. S. Coast Guard
UST Underground Storage Tank
VE Value Engineering
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WA Work Assignment
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy D-6
-------
G Section I - Introduction to the Superfund Program
G Section II - Superfund Regulatory Framework
G Section III - Superfund Process
G Section IV - Enforcement Program
G Section V - Removal Actions
G Section VI - Site Assessment
G Section VII - Remedial Actions
G Section VIM - State and Indian Tribal Involvement
G Section IX - Federal Facilities
G Section X - Community Relations/Public Participation
G Section XI - Management and Technical Infrastructure
G Section XII - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
G Section XIII - CERCL's Relationship to Other Legislation
G Section XIV - Future Directions of the Superfund Program
------- |